Barbecue summer? Newsnight turns up the heat on man from the Met Office
Viewers of Newsnight on Tuesday evening will have enjoyed the spectacle of Nick Robinson gently roasting Ewen McCullum, Chief Meteorologist at the Met Office, over his organisation's prediction earlier this year that we were 'odds-on for a barbecue summer'.
But as cool drizzle descended across the UK, Mr McCullum resolutely refused to engage in the spirit of playful chiding. 'When you're forecasting so far ahead you have to base the forecast in probabilistic terms and quite frankly I don't think the media grasped that. It tends to be very deterministic so clearly the barbecue summer and the heatwaves got the headlines,' he said.
Nick was having none of it. Producing the Met Office press release, he quoted the fateful headline 'The Coming Summer is Odds On for a Barbecue Summer', adding, 'there aren't many journalists who would have turned that into a headline that says, 'Barbecue Summer - 'Maybe, Says the Met Office.'
Quite. And this highlights the core problem with much of the debate around climate change. As many of the excellent and voluminous exchanges on Bloom blog comments will demonstrate, the devil with the science of anthropogenic global warming is in the detail - detail that is crucially lost when scientists and/or their media advisors cherrypick the tastiest findings of their research and turn it into exciting headlines.
The rationale is obvious and shares much with consumer product launches. We want people to sit up and pay attention to the stuff we've made and done, so we tease them in with a juicy tidbit. Problem is, the juicy tidbit is often the only part of the story that makes it into the public consciousness, and then only in a considerably fattened and jucified state. This doesn't matter if we're talking about a pair of trainers, but it is of considerable importance if it shapes the policies, via the electorate, that will determine the future of the planet.
An example? This is how a report entitled 'Changes in Continental Freshwater Discharge from 1948-2004' comes to be press released as 'Water Levels Dropping in Some Major Rivers as Global Climate Changes' before finally being transmogrified by the international press into 'Major rivers drying up'. As the Bloom post 'Major rivers aren't drying up (or how alarmism doesn't help)' demonstrates, the science by no means supports the sexy headline.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)
Comments
Richard,
Glad to see you back at it. You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak.
There was a story about the Colorado River drying up by 2050 because "climate change" is going to cause a 10% decline in precipitation. No basis in fact.
The Colorado is drying up only downstream of the locations where we are syphoning off all the water for agriculture and cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, others...The Imperial Valley of California used to be desert - but by irrigation with massive amounts of water from the Colorado, it is probably one of the most intensive agricultural areas in the US. Los Angeles would not exist without the Aquaduct which was built in the 70's to bring water from the Colorado to LA...the list goes on.
But the whole picture doesn't make headlines, nor garner more research grants.
Well, you obviously have a good grasp of the picture...
Cheers for the Article & Glad you are back
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Yes, the met office is deservedly being widely ridiculed for having got it completely wrong again, for the third summer in a row (not to mention the most recent winter). The Times has an article "Met Office should be sued". There is a serious point here - many people may have booked holidays based on these forecasts.
Why do they persist in making fools of themselves?
When will they realise that long-term forecasts are completely useless and they should just stop issuing them?
The Met Office is suffering from a severe case of GWD (Global Warming Disorder) which gives them a deluded confidence in their abilities to predict the future and a bias tendency to over-predicting temperature.
Complain about this comment
Global Warming Disorder
LOL
i like that :)
Complain about this comment
This actually highlights a serious problem with journalism ( apart from the fact that my ex - wife is one !!)
The classic "dog bites man" versus "man bites dog" scenario . Journalists in the age of 24 hour multi media whatever their medium are always looking for a headline or soundbite, and not necessarily researching the story themselves . There are some very good hacks out there, but the ratings of whichever media pays their bills , is governing what they report , and how they portray the story . This is why the BBC has lost so much respect, from a previously unquestioned position of impartiallity , the Corporation has now become a biased mouthpiece for the latest "Urban elite" or "Liberal intelligentia" fad.
My current wife is a PR professional, and can show with academic references , exactly how the media , and public opinion has been manipulated in favour of the green agenda. Government funding , in pursuit of what they believe to be the popular vote, but in reality is limited to a small group of activists, is directed to scientists who will follow the funding. Science , which is based on scepticism, is pushed in to concensus to preserve funding, and project a political aim.
Where is the groundbreaking jounalism or science , which will reject orthodoxy in favour of truth ?
Complain about this comment
Remember boys and girls it's not raining everywhere: don't fall into the trap of thinking little ol' Britain is the whole world. e.g.
"In contrast most of the Mediterranean has experienced a scorching heat wave. Some areas have been subject to an unbearable, prolonged hot spell with temperatures climbing to 44C. This heat along with tinder dry conditions has triggered wildfires in Spain, southern France, Italy and Greece." Sky News. 27/07/09
http://blogs.news.sky.com/theweathergirls/Post:29aa98e5-ff0c-4147-9936-6eefe6649349
There's even a heat wave (up to 35 degrees C plus) going on in the Arctic circle on the NW/Alaskan side of the USA. This time caused by the Arctic Jet stream flowing abnormally high.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=8
'The worlds ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090725120303.htm
The Met' Office is learning the hard way that predicting the position of the Jet Stream across the north-eastern Atlantic, during the summer months, with any certainty is going to be very difficult.
If the Jet Stream was high over the top of Britain we would be having some of that Mediterranean heat; as it persists in remaining over the UK, or drifting to our south, it drives in low pressure to bring regular bands of rain sweeping in from the Atlantic. It was the same Jet Stream that brought the storm fronts that caused the Gloucester/ Sheffield/ Hull floods back in the summer of 2007.
And if you need a reminder of the difference between weather and climate . . .
http://sites.google.com/site/weatherandclimate/
Complain about this comment
Tim,
We have now been told by an "expert" , NASA no less , that 15 years of cooling will prove the models wrong .
Not long to go now then !!
If you don't want to wait until then, you could just keep an eye on http://www.climateaudit.org/ for a correct analysis of data and models .
Complain about this comment
The Met Office models are B-U-S-T-E-D.
The whole 'global warming / climate change' movement is based on these models. They forecast all kinds of nasty stuff in about 30 years time. It's always about 30 years into the future - but they cannot even get it right 2 months ahead.
30 years is great - I can pick the Derby winners and the FA cup winner for 30 years time. Just send me the money.
PS: good to have you back, Richard.
Complain about this comment
This was really a softball interview. The Met Office is currently facing a budget cut because their primary customer, the MOD, has decided to withdraw financial support reducing the MO funding by a quarter.
So, as alternative view on this subject, Newsnight decided to get a member of the Cloud Appreciation Society to come in and look very chilled and basically say he likes clouds!
A few dots may have been worth joining up here. If a few thousand dollars can supposedly bring a scientist into the fold of utter climate change denial, then why cant a budget cut on this scale be considered a possible cause of some at the MO to make a few hasty headline grabbing claims? And what does this say about the quality of their other work?
Complain about this comment
I don't buy the Met Office's hand-waving and pretence that the meejah distorted their message.
If they don't really know what the weather will do then they must be honest and say:
"We don't know what kind of summer to expect"
Honesty always works for me - it's just so simple.
Complain about this comment
One can't help but be reminded of Sir John Houghton's statement:
"Unless we announce disasters, no-one will listen".
and also Stephen Schneider
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
This kind of distortion of the science is not a case of media people over-extending themselves, it's part and parcel of the global warming project.
Complain about this comment
#10
and also Stephen Schneider
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
And as quoted by Michael Mann in the BBC's appalling and biased "Climate Wars"
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
First, welcome back - haven't see you for a while. Hope you are doing well. Nice to see you - your debate has been missed.
With regards to your post, I have a couple of issues:
First - the "heat wave" in Alaska is due to a Low pressure system off the coast of Oregon and Washington. The Jet stream has been pushed upward by the low. The Low pressure system will move through in the next couple of days and the jet stream will return to its "normal" path. Note, this is not the first occurance - this happens whenever you have a Low such as this off the coast. 35C is not unusual in much of Alaska during the summer months.
Second - with regards to "sea surface temperatures" - I beg to differ. We do not have accurate records of sea surface temps going back to the 1880's. We didn't even really have a picture of sea surface temps until satellites came along. Oh, a measurement here, a measurement there, but not the "whole picture". Additionally, we must consider that the instrumentation used to measure temperatures has changed since we started putting up weather satellites in the 70's - so data must be "corrected" to account for the differences - and no correction is perfect. We simply can't say that sea surface temps are higher then they have ever been. If for no other reason - then because we simply don't know.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry,
I dip in and out of discussion as and when I feel I can contribute. (I also contribute to other threads and have a 'life'.)
I see little point in playground point scoring, assertions unsupported by fact or argument, name calling, people stating that they have *proved* something (when they have merely re-enforced a pre-existing conclusion), sweeping generalisations, gross over-exaggerations and so on. All of which are exhibited in blog debates.
I do understand the cause of the warm weather over the high US NW (I also follow weather blogs too - with particular interest in Jet Streams, ENSO, PDO, AMO etc).
I didn't say it was unprecedented, just an abnormal high. It's not a case for global warming (but if the same circumstances are the general situation for decades then that's a trend, and can signify climate change) I'm just pointing out that - 'weather happens' - and that because the UK is wet and cold that doesn't mean it is the same everywhere.
http://sites.google.com/site/weatherandclimate/
The SST temperature record is the best we have to go on; certainly better than faulty anecdotal memories etc; and certainly improves as we go through the 20th century; not least as you say because of remote sensing technology.
On 'alarmism' generally.
Could potential climate change impact regions in a pretty serious way. It's almost certainly happened before: (Please read all of it before hitting the 'sign in' button.) And this is just one example.
http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/drought-and-the-collapse-of-mayan-civilisation
Remember, much of the world's population still depends on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods.
And are high CO2 levels implicated in past rises in global temperature and consequent climate change in earth's history? Yes. And this is just one example.
http://sites.google.com/site/thepaleoceneeocenethermalmaxim/home
I understand the base physics both about GHGs and their role in warming earth's atmosphere too. Few 'sceptics' try and argue that greenhouse gasses don't exist. I still think there is cause for concern.
Hope you are back to full strength Richard.
Complain about this comment
Thanks SheffTim. Getting there! Apologies for quiet blog over last week or so btw. I'm still only part-time while recovering and Shanta is currently on leave.
The second half of the Newsnight interview was also interesting. Ewen McCullum went on to say that '... long-range predictions and seasonal forecasting is actually a very experimental type of forecasting. We have to base it in probabilistic terms, but we have a problem getting that across to the public ...'
Would it be fair to describe IPCC climate models as still 'very experimental' or have we moved beyond that phase to something more concrete?
Complain about this comment
@SheffTim
#13
Doesn't the link to the Mayans demonstrate that climate, even in relatively recent times has changed from cold to warm to cold again, before entering our own warm period? These different spells were completely natural, so why should the current warm spell be any different? Because of increases in CO2? I don't think so, because as the IPCC explain, the climate models predict a "hotspot" to indicate AGW, but empirical measurements simply do not show any evidence of a hotspot.
I haven't read the other link yet - there are to many links within links to follow quickly
Complain about this comment
@Richard_Cable
#14
Would it be fair to describe IPCC climate models as still 'very experimental' or have we moved beyond that phase to something more concrete?
The IPCC describe the models:
"Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."
Which to me reads "we knew the answer we wanted, we just need to tweak the code to get the right answer"
Gavin Schmidt recently said the only way the climate models would give the right answer is to take the average of 20 models (out of 24 i think, which begs the question, what was wrong with the other 4?).
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/07/gavin-schmidt-of-real-climate-edge.html
"It turns out that if you take the average of these 20 models, that average is a better model than any one of the 20 models. It has a better prediction of the seasonal cycle of rainfall; it has a better prediction of surface air temperatures; it has a better prediction of cloudiness. That is a little bit odd because these aren't random."
Isn't that statistics rather than science?
Complain about this comment
In my opinion it's a little unfair to slam the MET Office for not getting the forecasts right; weather models (& climate models, for that matter) are predictions based on probability, and as such are bound to be wrong sometimes. The problem, as I see it, is the interface between the meteorologists and the public, i.e. the MET Office's PR people, & the media in general, and more specifically the way they report the forecasts. If some idea of the probabilities for particular weather events occuring were given in the forecasts it might lead to less public dissappointment when they are wrong.
In anycase, it's always worth remembering that we, in the UK, currently have things pretty easy weather-wise; As this article about the Bangladesh Floods, which I was reading the over day points out, our wash-out of a summer is nothing compared with what some nations have to put up with every year!
Still, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the Jet Stream decides to divert north sometime in the next couple of weeks, so that I can celebrate my birthday with a Bar-B! ;)
Complain about this comment
Hold their feet to the fire. Forecasting the weather is their job - it's what they are paid to do every day, every week.
They have now got it wrong 3 summers in a row and got it wrong last winter as well.
These wrong forecasts are based on computer 'models' of the weather. The same models that they use to project all kinds of nasty stuff for the year 2099 - ninety years into the future. But they cannot even manage 90 days.
It's time for the weather people to get back to their weather stations and work on better forecasting techniques before they bother us again.
Time for the enviros to get back to real projects helping whales and dolphins instead of trying to save us from ourselves.
And time for our own pols to tackle today's problems instead of all this nonsense about heading off trouble for the year 2050.
Complain about this comment
It seems the problem the Met Office is suffering from now is that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place; or between weather and climate.
(BTW Thanks to the contributors above: Tim and Bill, for touching on the alleged blessed confusatory conflict which is Climate /Weather or Global Warming /Climate Change, we sceptics cant possibly know about these differences unless a believer does us the service of crossing themselves and reminding us of the holy duality)
The Met Office does a good job with real Weather, but I suspect they have been corrupted by smelling a buck to get from the burgeoning un-ending pot that is available from fantasy Climate.
I like the vague hand waving description of "probability" from MCCullen in the Newsnight interview and other posters above. If being wrong isn't allowed to be called wrong, then what is ever wrong?
Great! That's what the MO want a part of.
I know climate and weather aren't the same, but do the Met Office?
Why have they made these "experimental" predictions available for scrutiny in such a public way? I suggest they may have believed that their prognostications would not suffer any heavy scrutiny. They thought there was something to be gained by surfing the wave of temperature rise at the end of the last century and beginning of this one, to make a gamble that their guesstimates will garner some well shepherded kudos from the favourable current media climate to translate into contracts from other government (therefore un-competitive) bodies with their alleged health care warnings, and such like.
It is telling that the MOD gave them the bums rush; I guess since the military has a culture involved in making real world tangible decisions.
Complain about this comment
A MoD spokesperson said the cuts to the Met. Office were made with the intent of "prioritizing success in current operations, such as Afghanistan".
You may have noticed a major speech recently by General Sir Richard Dannatt (attempting to gain more equipment for the troops and influencing a forthcoming Strategic Defence Review) where he sent a clear signal that he believes that some large budget, 'cold-war legacy' projects should be cut in order to fund current operations.
Britain is involved in two wars that have lasted for several years.
There is a widespread feeling amongst the armed services that they are at a crisis point, both in current levels of equipment and funding, and in making key decisions as to future direction in the upcoming Strategic Defence Review.
e.g. Review Ordered As Defence Spending Hits Crisis Level.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6657875.ece
Also:
http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresses/general-sir-richard-dannatt-address/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/30/defence-budget-aircraft-carriers-trident
Any debate on the future of the armed services, Afghanistan etc is best left to other boards.
Richard, I've just seen your question below my last post. I'll try and find time to post some thoughts by Sunday evening.
Complain about this comment
@SheffTim
Point taken about the MoD's particular current overstretch, and indeed most of the world's overstretch if you factor in the economic climate.
It would be interesting to know which political wonk agreed for the MoD to shuffle over 4.5 million of its budget to the Met office in the first place. I admit to be not too clear about what it was supposed to serve useful as. Right now some forceful person has managed to persuade the government it is not as useful as armour and ammunition.
Not wanting to partake in a debate on the future of the armed services, I'm more interested in how the current depressed economy could impact on a lot of other climate pork budget inclusions such as that MO instance. For example how about the typical £25,000+ a year climate change officer that most borough councils seem to need? Do we really to pay for them too? Does money just flow to anything associated with word climate?
A lot of interest has been generated about how money directs science research; a lot of this interest has focused on how it influences sceptic views. Consideration of the existing government money flowing to climate studies promoting fearful scenarios have largely been ignored - as in this case with the Met office.
I may seem to be the labouring the point, but having now become interested in how money sways people to promote perverse science to such a degree that they condemn future generations to death, then I think it is only fair that once this sociological point is made (it is hard to put this reasonable genie back in the bottle), then logically we must think about all money going into anything to do with climate research nowadays.
I think this will become more and more obvious to people, especially if the recession goes on. The Met office's attempts to garner respectability with these dubious predictions over the last 3+ years (which only by the laws of probability did not turn out to be incredibly beneficial to them) should face some deeper scrutiny, and I'm sure it will happen.
Complain about this comment
If you're interested in where the money is, see here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm
and:
www.activistcash.com
Complain about this comment
Hi @Tim,
I am not sure where the comment regarding "alarmism" came from - I made no reference to the word.
Thank you for the article, I found it most interesting. I have been to the Yucatan many times, visited both Tulum and Chichen-Itza. In Tulum, I had a long discussion with an archeologist (over a few beers, at the pyramid on the bluff next to the beach (there were no resorts there then). One of the things that they had discovered was bacteria in the cisterns at both Tulum and Chichen-Itza. One theory for the demise is that the water became polluted with this bacteria (you still cannot drink it today). He had some other ideas regarding the downfall of the Mayan civilization - personally, I think it was probably a number of factors which lead to the decline. The drought conditions suggested in the paper during MWP sound like a significant contributing factor.
I am concerned regarding your comment:
"I see little point in playground point scoring, assertions unsupported by fact or argument, name calling, people stating that they have *proved* something (when they have merely re-enforced a pre-existing conclusion), sweeping generalisations, gross over-exaggerations and so on. All of which are exhibited in blog debates"
On this, I do agree with you completely. Was this comment directed at me? I have tried (with some difficulty) to engage in civil discourse and intelligent debate regarding the subject. My whole position is that basically we (the collective we) appear to be arrogant (and ignorant) fools. We really don't know enough about the climate and all its interrelated processes to make "predictions". Also, due to the nature, I have doubts about our ability to ever make accurate predictions.
I also do not believe that we have the ability to deal with the emissions side of th equation at this point (regardless of your beliefs on the subject). Why not focus on the other side of the equation: natural absorbtion? I do not believe any of the "solutions" presented will "solve" the problems they are designed for. There is a lot we can do to improve natural absorbtion - like restoring rainforests and forests, wetlands and bogs, savanahs. The way to do this is to develop the third world, so that they are not sustainance farming - by using modern agricultural practices and supplying cheap energy for cooking, heating, irrigation, etc. This will not only improve the CO2 situation - by allowing more of these precious environments to be preserved and restored, but also do something real about the plight of people in the third world.
Show me something that will work - and I'll buy into it. But lets face it, cap and trade has not worked. If the UK and EU could not manage the meager cuts in emissions mandated by Kyoto - what makes anyone think we can reduce emissions by 80+% in 40 years?
I think there are viable solutions out there - but it would seem that everyone has a vested interest and this has become a very polarized issue.
I also do believe the arctic is very sensitive due to the positive feedback associated with meltwater. It acts like a magnifying glass when sitting on the ice (and I can light a cigarette with a magnifying glass if the sun is out...). But how that fits into the "whole picture", IMHO is still very unclear.
I hope I have not offended you. Unfortunately, I do not have a life. I did manage to "get out" yesterday for the first time in six weeks; hence, my presence on the blogs.
Wish you well.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
The Met Office has lost all credibility. Last year they were telling us we were in for a mild winter this year a barbecue summer?
The problem they have is that their belief in global warming is perverting their treatment of information.
They won't even release the data and methods upon which Hadcrut obtain a global temperature. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623
Well the problem with this is that when the data is released and should the methodology be proven wrong then it will damage our national interest.
The BBC should not shout too loudly about the roasting the man from the Met office got from Nick Robinson. The BBC have been the main cheerleader for the hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming, to the point that almost every science of nature programme mentions it.
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry,
"Was this comment directed at me?"
No Larry, it certainly wasn't directed at you personally.
In post 12 you welcomed me back, so I used that to try and explain why I only post now and again.
I also used it to summarise my feelings about many of the type of posts that you get on this subject, both here and elsewhere; I also used it to comment on some previous posts.
I also have little interest in topics that are only of partisan interest e.g. Al Gore ~ 'whatever'. (I've not even seen his film/book etc. I form my own views.)
I'm pretty cynical about politics in general; I have no party allegiance - I've yet to find one that represents me.
I am quite happy to have an 'adult' discussion on this topic (it is complex) and this blog seems to encourage that.
I won't claim to have an answer to everything, far from it (nor does anyone); this topic covers many fields, and I'm prepared to learn from people too. I'd rather people addressed it as dispassionately as they can rather than let partisan politics shape their view.
For what its worth I'm pessimistic about reducing emissions and cynical about cap and trade; I think we're in the adaptation game.
I agree about providing cheap energy for the developing world, but not that fossil fuels are the solution. The issue that we need to discuss more on this blog is the role of GHGs in earth's climate, much centres on that. The entire carbon cycle for that matter; life on earth is carbon based.
An interesting (general) point I read recently is that plants take CO2 from the air to make their mass (leaves, trunks, roots etc) and then release oxygen that animals then inhale and is necessary for their lives. Animals consume the product of CO2 in plant material (carnivores eat herbivores) and then exhale CO2, that is then in turn absorbed by plants. Plants and animals are in a symbiotic relationship revolving around CO2 and O.
I agree with you about: "There is a lot we can do to improve natural absorption - like restoring rainforests and forests, wetlands, bogs, savannahs" - but it might prove incompatible with developing the 3rd world to 1st world standards of living.
We in the first world are hardly living off our own resources; much of what we consume and depend on comes from the developing world. Planet earth doesn't expand to keep up with increasing demand, and human population is increasing too.
I hope whatever is keeping you at home is improving. Take care.
I'll try and post tomorrow in response to Richard's question. #14.
Complain about this comment
Yes the carbon cycle is very important in understanding carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In the new spirit of non-partisan discussion on this board I humbly suggest that you find out more about the carbon cycle then re-evaluate everything you think you know.
I guess there will be other people who have not heard of the carbon cycle so here is a quick round-up:
Trees and green plants absorb CO2 (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere in a process called photosynthesis. They give out oxygen. This is the biggest factor removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
The carbon is stored in the tree or plant in several chemical forms. If the tree is burned then the carbon is oxidised into CO2 and goes back into the atmosphere. This circular process is why it's called the carbon cycle.
I hope this has been a 'light-bulb' moment. It's so pivotal that it really is time to re-evaluate everything you read or thought about in the old pre-knowledge days.
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
Thank you. I apologize for my mis-understanding of your words. I agree (almost) completely with what you have to say.
I do think that developing the third world (perhaps not to first world standards, at least not for a long time) will a) reduce strife and hunger via intense agriculture (as opposed to sustainance farming) and b) allow for the opportunity to preserve and restore many of the precious environments there.
I do enjoy your posts a great deal. While some may label you a "believer" and me a "denier" - I think our views are pretty close. I also try to read, review study and form my own opinions.
I am also an independent - as I too do not like the choices (political) which are presented for a vote. Our choice here last time was "horrible" and "even more horrible"...
Cheers & Thanks again.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Jack (re #26)
I agree that we should look at the "big picture" - i.e. carbon cycle. It is not correct that trees are the "biggest factor". The oceans absorb approx 1/3 of the atmospheric CO2 cycle, while wetlands, peat bogs, grasslands, etc also contribute dramatically, but the point remains the same.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
We're getting a lot of mission creep and non-sequiturs here.
We started off with Global Warming this was re-branded into Climate Change. A great slogan because it covers pretty much anything that happens. The Copenhagen Jamboree even has earthquakes on the agenda although I'm not really sure if my SUV is heavy enough to cause earthquakes - I'll check the manual.
And there's more. It's now turned into a mission to save the 3rd world. Not only are we going to save the world's climate from a horrible sci-fi meltdown in 2050 but we're going to help all those poor people in poor countries as well. This is really really going to work this time round because this is so today.
But wait - there's more. No it's not a set of steak knives. It's millions of green jobs in the developed world to save us from the recession. We're all going to get richer and richer by building windmills and becoming Climate Enforcement Officers.
So we're going to save the planet, save the 3rd world, and save our own economies. Normally a package like this would cost trillions of dollars in the shops. But there's a special introductory price just this week and it's only going to cost trillions of dollars.
If you order today you get a bonus: a photo of a Prius with Bono's autograph on the back. And GreenPeace bumper sticker for your own car.
And the first 20 callers will get a free reflective Anti-Albedo baseball cap.
Don't miss out on this amazing deal. You get to save the planet, save the 3rd world, and save your own job all for this unrepeatable price.
Call now.
Complain about this comment
Hi Richard, (#14.)
It's important to distinguish between weather forecasting and climate modelling. Each uses very different methodologies and is based on very different principles.
Climate modelling ISN'T an attempt to produce a hundred-year long range forecast, as some seem to think. Met Office weather forecasters aren't involved in climate modelling or vice versa. There's an overview of each below.
Weather forecasting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting
Climate models:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_models
Given weather forecasters have always been easy targets I'll point out that I don't hear much criticism of the shipping forecasts, or those supplied to the RAF and civil aviation, also produced by the Met office. On occasion when a correct forecast was critical, e.g. Eisenhower deciding the date of the D Day landings, the weather forecasters got it right; and some specialised seasonal forecasts e.g. hurricane season forecasts, have proved quite accurate.
You asked my opinion as to the accuracy of climate models?
These models are based on well known physical processes and laws. Like much of science these can be calculated using maths (cast your mind back to school physics and chemistry lessons).
Atmospheric models use equations describing temperature, air pressure, water vapour, clouds, and precipitation, greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, how vegetation, soil, and snow or ice cover exchange energy and moisture with the atmosphere etc plotted onto grid points on a three-dimensional grid covering earth. The more grid points the greater detail. Coupled (ocean & atmosphere) climate models also have equations describing oceanic circulation, how it transports absorbed solar energy around the Earth, how it exchanges heat and moisture with the atmosphere and so on.
I consider them reasonably accurate. Particularly in terms of future projections it's not just one model run that gives the final result, but using averages of several models run many times. Inevitably as different aspects of earth/ocean/atmosphere mechanisms are understood in more detail there is need to add more and more into the models, hence the need for supercomputers.
The greatest area of uncertainty is in the behaviour of clouds. Roy Spencer has argued that they could act as a negative feedback rather than as a positive one. (Spencer seems to be shifting position on this as more evidence appears that they act as a positive one.).
Based on today's science the conclusion they reach, that increased levels of CO2 will result in a warmer atmosphere, I think should be taken at face value.
I'll end with
a) A quote from a Sceptic, Dr Roy Spencer:
"There is no question that great progress has been made in climate modelling. I consider computer modelling to be an absolutely essential part of climate research. After all, without running numbers through physical equations in a theoretically-based model, you really can not claim that you understand very much about how climate works."
B) A video of a climate model (US National Centre for Atmospheric Research) generating one month's global weather patterns; this isn't an animation based on satellite footage or meteorological records, but generated by the physics equations that are programmed into it. It replicates known weather patterns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbXwRP0CQNA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#26. Jack, you've got one part of the carbon cycle, but there's more to it than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html
There's a number of books looking at it in depth inc. The Carbon Cycle, ed T. M. L. Wigley. The Carbon Age by E. Roston and An Ocean of Air: A Natural History of the Atmosphere by G. Walker.
Complain about this comment
SheffTim
Why do you consider the models to be reasonably accurate?
Also, I think your statements on clouds are a bit general. The consensus seems to be running towards a negative feedback from boundary layer clouds.
There is a Climate Audit story here which looks at a 2006 review paper by Bony et al. The paper (a copy of which is linked by CA) is quite clear on the issue.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590
It's fascinating also to see how whole sections of the paper were lifted by the IPCC and then shorn of any mention of negative feedbacks.
Complain about this comment
@sheftim
#30
And to finish off Spencers conclusions:
But given all of the remaining uncertainties, I do not believe we can determine with any objective level of confidence whether any of the current model projections of future warming can be believed. Any scientist who claims otherwise either has political or other non-scientific motivations, or they are simply being sloppy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/how-do-climate-models-work/
Complain about this comment
some alarmists are fond of telling us "if you toss a coin in the air 100 times ....". This is statistics not science. You will get approximately 50% heads and 50% tails, but the pattern will be different almost everytime. First run - heads, tails, heads, tails. Second run - heads, heads, heads, tails. You get the picture. It is pure chance if any run is exactly the same.
The climate models are not statistics, they are programmes containing lots of variables, which constrain each other to give an end result, therefore each run by the same model should be the same. If all 24 climate models are giving different results and the only way Gavin Schmidt can get the "right answer" is to average the results, then there must be something fundamentally wrong with the computer programme. One or more of the variables controlling the programme must be wrong or missing.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
Complain about this comment
Timbo - any reason why you only quoted half of Spencer's conclusions ?
Post #30 is B-U-S-T-E-D
Hat tip to MangoChutneyUK for the full quote.
Complain about this comment
#32, 34. There was no ulterior motive.
I quoted Spencer simply to show that even the credible sceptics (i.e. the handful actively researching in the climate field) believe models have an important role to play. Spencer uses them (and satellite data) in his own research.
This runs contrary to often made assertions in blog-world that models are 'untrustworthy', 'useless', *hypothetical* etc. etc.
But as we're on Spencer - and the role(s) of clouds #31.
The cloud (and aerosol) issue has been a major research topic for decades, complicated by the fact that clouds can act as both negative and positive feedbacks; both by absorption of infrared from below and subsequent re-emission (clouds are generally good absorbers of infrared), but also have an albedo effect by reflecting solar energy from above.
In a nutshell, more water vapour generates a stronger greenhouse effect, since water vapour is a greenhouse gas. However, it may also lead to the formation of more clouds, which might help cool the planet by increasing earth's albedo.
Altitude also plays a role, high clouds tend to have lower albedo and reflect less solar energy back to space than low clouds, low clouds tend to cool, higher clouds to warm; but a warmer atmosphere means water vapour can rise higher and form more high level clouds etc.
There are other issues too (atmospheric turbulence, aerosols) but you get the idea.
This is a good basic 101 here:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html
Three recent discussions on clouds here, including Spenser's response to the recent paper in Science.
Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming. Clement et al. Science. 2009.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm
And: http://www.nbcwashington.com/weather/stories/Cooling-Low-Clouds-Could-Fall-Victim-to-Global-Warming.html
New Study in Science Magazine: Proof of Positive Cloud Feedback? R. Spencer. 2009. (He also links to a PDF of Clement's paper that he discusses on his website.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/new-study-in-science-magazine-proof-of-positive-cloud-feedback/
Water Vapour Climate Feedback Inferred From Climate Fluctuations, 2003-2008. Desslet et al. GRL. 2008. PDF. (Estimating the magnitude of water vapour feedback exclusively from data. No climate models involved.)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
@Tim writes:
"These models are based on well known physical processes and laws. Like much of science these can be calculated using maths (cast your mind back to school physics and chemistry lessons)."
Tim, I beg to differ. While we may understand basic physical processes in a laboratory - we really know very little of the processes, mechanisms and feedbacks associated with the Earth's Climate System. If you take a quick look at the paper on consensus by Bray and Von Storch (check out the 2004 paper - not what has been written about it). You will find they go through a dozen or so "natural processes" and assess our "understanding" of these processes. The respondents (climate scientists) did not share your optimism of our understanding.
My opinion, however irrelevant, is that we have barely scratched the surface of developing a "real" understanding of Earth's Climate System. We did not even "know" about the PDO until what 1996? We also don't really even know whether climate feedback associated with CO2 forcing is positive, highly positive (5.56 according to IPCC) or negative (as Dr. Spencer - whom you quoted, believes).
One of the pioneers of both computer climate modeling and chaos theory, Dr. Ed Lorenz, MIT (famous for the Lorenz attractor) said in 1961 that he did not believe we would EVER be able to make accurate climate forecasts - due to the nature of the system. He believed (unlike his collegue, Dr. White - who later became head of NOAA), that while we can have an effect on the system through various inputs - we cannot predict the result. Even his simple 3 variable, 3 equation model of a waterwheel is unpredictable (yet deterministic). No one in the 50 years since has been able to "predict" the path (in phase space) of the trajectory (values of the variables) of the model on the attractor.
Computing power is not the issue. The problem is that if you tweek the variable just a tiny bit, the resulting output tends to vary dramatically. Thats part of the problem - computers are digital, not analog - so when a program uses a value for "e" or pie (3.14159265...) - it is an approximation, not the "real" value (unless you are doing everything symbolically - which they are not). I am sure you are familiar with "sensitivity to initial conditions"
I will grant you that models have their uses - particularly in highlighting things we don't know - but making long term predictions is not a viable application (IMHO). Nor do I think it will ever be...
Hope you day is good, off to the docs - so won't reply to anything til this evening (Texas Time).
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
sorry to see that your post was sent to the moderators - I was hoping to read your comment - while I don't agree with you, I do enjoy the intelligent and civilized discourse and debate with you.
I hope the moderators decide to post - or you modify whatever snipet is required and repost.
Debate is healthy.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Re post 35 - referred to mods. I included a PDF link as a tinyurl. Hopefully they`ll put it back up, even if without the link. (I also responded to Mango and Jack in it.)
The mod's allow some tinyurls, but not others, *scratch head*.
An explanation of the policy and some consistency would be nice. I`ll wait and see if they`ll put it back up before thinking of reposting.
Larry, a difference of opinion = impasse. (Thought: 'better to try than just give up' perhaps?)
Otherwise the only test is to wait and see, unless someone comes up with time-travel of course.
Complain about this comment
Hi Tim
The problem is with the pdf's not the tinyurl's. Auntie doesn't like pdf's and say so in their rules. We've all fell "victim" to this rule at some stage.
Try re-posting with a link to the page where the pdf is and then tell us which pdf to look at - may work and as Larry states, it's always good to discuss the issues with somebody civilised
Complain about this comment
#39. My post - #35 - is back up.
I'll stop using tinyurls. I gave the paper title and author too (GRS = Geophysical Research Letters) so you should be able to locate the PDF.
Complain about this comment
#30 All good points SheffTim. The D-Day forecast has, probably correctly, been called 'the most important weather forecast in history'. Not to belittle the efforts of Stagg and co, but these forecasts were only for the next 24 hours, although admittedly in an era when forecasting more than a few hours ahead was considered impossible.
The man in charge of the forecasting for D-Day, Group Capt James Stagg, drew his projections from three sources - the Met Office, the Admiralty and the United States Army Air Forces.
Interestingly, the USAAF team used an analogue method that presaged a feature of modern modelling - forecasts based on (or 'corrected' by) past weather patterns, i.e. if this is what the weather did before, this is what it will probably do again. They tended to be over optimistic.
The Met Office, by contrast, had a more 'dynamic' method involving a lot of empirical observations - measuring wind and temperature at high altitude - collected by the Royal Air Force. They tended to be a lot closer to the mark.
The required combination of moonlight and tide meant the invasion had to happen on either 5, 6 or 7 June. Eisenhower postponed for 5 June based on the more cautious forecasts of the Met Office. On 5 June, high winds battered the coast of Normandy and visibility was poor. An invasion in these conditions would have been a disaster.
The Met Office forecast for 6 June (correctly) reported a likely 'weather window' and the invasion went ahead. Crucially, the Germans lacked empirical observations of their own due to severely restricted U-boat activity in the Atlantic and could be forgiven for thinking there was a cat-in-hell's chance of anyone invading over the Channel on that particular day.
Complain about this comment
#41. Thanks for the additional detail Richard, I was unaware of it.
The role of weather in military history is fascinating; many instances providing cases of 'If only they knew then what we know now'!
As it seems a quiet day you may be interested in the four examples below.
Hubert Lamb once wrote a small pamphlet containing meteorological charts showing in detail the positions of pressure systems and changes in wind direction during the Spanish Armada's attempt to invade Britain. These charts were accompanied by accounts from ships logs etc.
From start to finish the winds favoured the English fleet.
(Lamb's pamphlet must be rare nowadays, but I once managed read a copy retrieved from the basement of a reference library.)
See also: http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/53159.html
The weather systems at the time of the Armada are thought to have been unusual, but there were also other extreme weather events elsewhere in the world, during 1587-1589, that suggest the signature of a strong El Nino event.
The early 13th Century saw the Mongol armies of Genghis Khan begin its ruthless campaign of expansion (partly driven it's believed by droughts on the Mongolian steppes).
In 1237 the Mongolians accomplished something that even today is thought impossible, a successful winter invasion of Russia.
A Mongolian cavalry army easily crossed over Russia's frozen river Volga, which in summer formed a formidable natural obstacle. It's thought the Mongols used frozen rivers as highways to reach and plunder prosperous trading centres and penetrate deeper into Russia.
By 1274 the Mongol emperor Kublai Khan ruled much of China and had ambitions to conquer Japan.
In November 1274 his army, carried in a fleet of Chinese and Korean ships, attempted a landing in Hakosaki Bay. Driven back by Samurai the Mongols tried to re-embark back onto their ships. As they did so a typhoon blew the ships onto the rocks of the bay, killing some 13,000 troops and sailors.
Kublai Khan tried again in 1281. This time he gathered together a much bigger force carried by a fleet of around 4,000 ships, again manned by Chinese and Korean sailors.
Several landings probed for weak spots in Samurai defences. A Mongol force landed and drove the ill disciplined Samurai back, but then, in August, as the main Mongol fleet gathered in Kyushu bay, another typhoon struck the entire fleet and wrecked it.
Its thought some 100,000 soldier and sailors drowned (almost certainly a majority of the Mongol force). It left the Mongol land-force isolated, unsupported and demoralised; the Samurai gained victory.
If the Chinese and Korean sailors realised that there was a distinct typhoon season (usually May to October) and had tried to give advice, then they had been ignored.
The Khan, who did not accompany his force, abandoned his ambitions.
The Japanese believed that divine intervention had saved them and called the winds of the cyclone the Divine Wind; better known to us from a more recent war as the Japanese term 'Kamikaze'.
There was heavy rain the night before the Battle of Agincourt; this made the ground extremely soft. The French were reliant on charges by heavily laden knights on horseback; the English were largely on foot and holding a fixed position. The French horses churned up the ground and the French found their progress slowed and manoeuvrability hindered; they became easier targets for the English archers. Henry V had the weather on his side too; it may have played a decisive role.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article2051111.ece
There has been some surprise at the connection between the Met Office and the MOD, but the military are keenly aware of the importance of meteorology.
Complain about this comment
@Tim
Impasse perhaps, but I have gained insights from your posts and hope that I too have provoked thought in you as well. To me, it seems worthy.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
@Richard, @Tim
Lets not forget the "Battle of the Bulge" - weather prevented air cover and reinforcement by air as well as supplies. Patton ordered his priest to write a prayer for good weather for battle...weather cleared (contrary to forecast)
Also, when Pompei The Great (sp?) fled Rome and Ceasar (Julius Gaus), his fleet was wrecked by a storm. He and the other Senators survived, but most of the fleet was wrecked. If I recall correctly, the Romans lost another fleet around the same time.
Harsh winter weather caused the loss of most of Hannibal's elephants in his winter attempt to cross the Alps and attack Rome.
History if full of examples where weather was a major factor...
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry,
Hitler took advantage of low cloud cover in launching the Ardennes offensive (the 101st Airborne division were pretty magnificent in holding Bastogne with virtually no ammo or supplies); a cold front brought clear skies, air-dropped supplies and air attacks on the German forces and turned the battle, but it was a close run thing.
Hannibal was attached to the use of elephants; (effective at terrifying enemy cavalry horses apparently), not sure it was his best idea to take animals used to a hot climate over the Alps in winter though. He was a brilliant general otherwise, as was Patton also.
I've always enjoyed discussions with people with similar interests; we learn from each other, and if we disagree let's hope we manage to disagree agreeably.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile in the real world of 2009
Drastic action to stop a potential multi-billion fraud was taken by the Treasury yesterday when it imposed a zero rate of value added tax on carbon credits, the allowances issued as part of a scheme to help curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Losses to the exchequer so far are unlikely to have exceeded a few hundred millions pounds...
from the Financial Times. Only a 'few hundred million pounds' - so that's alright then.
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
Cheers for that. Thanks.
I managed to jump from a plane today - first time in 7 weeks. I opened at 14.000 ft (HAHO) and found a nice cumulus cloud to "carve" - I needed it alot. I did have a debate regarding the "carbon footprint" of my passion (skydiving) - and its not as bad as one might think.
In any case - I'm hurting a bit right now - but it was worth it!
Lets agree to disagree agreably - and argue our points politely as "news" and new science becomes available.
Cheers Mate.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Jack
No, its not "alright then"...neither is the $1.8 Trillion dollar deficit spending the US is expecting this year (fiscal year ends in Oct, and we already passed 1 Trillion deficit for the year).
One huge fraud we should have a much closer look at is the EDS program (sp) - whereby industries in the third world are paid huge sums for "carbon offsets" - and paid for by UK industry and taxpayers - while in terms of other pollutants (what I would call "real polluants" as opposed to CO2) - these companies are horrible in their destruction of the environment.
If the EU and UK is going to do this silly offset thing - then take that money and upgrade your own plants. The West is "exporting" their industries to the third world - where they don't have the traditional pollution laws. The only thing that seems to matter is CO2 emissions (or other GHGs, like HFCs - where the real money on offsets is).
Meanwhile...in 2009...some of the worst polluters in the world are being "rewarded" for relatively cheap HFC scrubbers with huge amounts of cash.
Please, someone show me a better way. Our real only hope lies with developing the third world. The ripple effect will multiply every dollar or pound spent. I am open to a "better way" - but I must say, I do not believe the current system is working.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Hi Tim,
Hannibal was certainly a great general. He really put the Carthagenians (sp?) on the "map" so to speak. Unfortunately, his defeat relagated the Carthagenians to a minor role as the Roman Society moved from (greek type) democracy to empire, some 200 years later.
I do admire Julius Ceasar a great deal (one of my heros). He was smart enough to realize that he really worked for his legions (rather than them for him) and inspired and helped the people. I believe the line from the movie "Gladiator" was correct: "Rome is not the Senate - it is the Mob (Citizenry)". I believe that both Julius and his grand-nephew Augustus both understood this, as did Claudius. In between, well...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
The real problem is that there isn't a readily available alternative fuel source that can be brought on-line.
Larry; how do you see the best way forward for developing the 3rd world and what would a developed 3rd world look like?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carthage was a superpower of its day, and rivalry and conflict with the rising Rome was inevitable. We forget there were other major players at that time too. Persia for example never came under Roman rule, though Rome tried unsuccessfully to engineer that.
I admire the Greeks more than the Romans, at heart Rome was a gangster-state, dependent on conquest, slavery and tribute to maintain its position. Great engineers and builders with a superb military; but intellectually beaten hands down by the earlier Greeks.
But credit where credit is due, the Republic (copied the Greeks of course) was an early attempt at limited power sharing and democracy with built in checks and balances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_republic
Can someone suggest the BBC start a History blog?
Skydiving - *bounces around* - It is on my list of things to do before I die, I need to save some money first. I have a friend from my climbing days who's base jumped off the top of a big Norwegian fjord and has been seriously into skydiving. He's quite inspirational about it.
Complain about this comment
To the Moderators - can someone start a History blog? I think it would be of great interest.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
I agree that there isn't an alternative fuel which can be brought on-line today. Lets face it - wind, solar, tidal, etc., have their applications, but it is not mainstream for a number of reasons (cost being one major factor). Yes, it could be done, a lot of things "could be done" - but the "current crop" of green solutions just don't measure up. Even for the "First world".
Regarding what a "developed" third world would look like - I would point to Costa Rica as an example. The problem though is "how to get there".
I think we need to look at Africa and Asia as really two different situations, although with many similarities. For this discussion, I will focus on Africa. (I can get into SE Asia on another post if you like).
In order to develop the nations of Africa, I believe there are two main hurdles - number 1 being political stability and corruption. The second being investment (which will not happen on a massive scale without addressing the first issue).
I have been kicking this problem around in my head for years - even before I became ill. I believe that we should start by defining a set of "minimum standards" for democratic rule, separation of church and state as well as human rights (like the US "Bill of Rights" - Amendmens 1-10 of the Constitution - perhaps not exactly as those are written, but I think you get the idea). Find one country willing to accept such conditions for serious development and investment. A key would have to be serious anti-corruption laws - and enforcement of such.
So we have this mythical country (as perhaps I am a bit too optimistic), but lets say we have one. We use it as a model and make substantial investments around cheap energy and cheap food.
In today's world, it does mean the "C" word - coal, and natural gas. You start by building a coal plant (or rather several) and a basic distribution system (you would also need gas-fired turbines to manage the grid and keep supply in line with demand at all times. It also means building petrochemical plants to provide fuels and fertilizers. Both of these undertakings will provide jobs - and prosperity.
Electricity must be distributed - so power lines must be run and maintained. I realise it makes no sense to run electricity into huts - but as the huts in the real rural villages are generally close together (for protection) - you provide an electrical "hub" in the center of the village - along with all-weather cables which can then be run into individual huts and buildings to supply electricity for heating and cooking. In more remote areas, as well as while this infrastructure is being built, distribute Natural Gas (60% of which in Africa is literally burned off as waste at this point) for heating and cooking. Of course a stove and heater must be provided.
Now we have power for pumps for wells and irrigation. We also have fuel for tractors and fertilizers. Areas which are more suitable for intensive agriculture should be the initial focus, and expand from there. Tractors need to be supplied of course - along with modern agricultural techniques (such as crop rotation, etc). So, now we have areas which are not only feeding themselves well, but have clean water from wells which are much deeper and not hand dug.
Another "side affect" of this (which is key) is that people will become more educated (or less ignorant if you prefer). I would also suggest programs similar in idea to Roosevelt's "new deal" - putting people to work building schools, hospitals and clinics, post offices, roads, trails, etc. Again, this will provide both work and education - and reduce ignorance. Also include water treatment and sanitation facilities in this program. This program should also include a long term development plan for water use and management (building reseviors, etc).
Large areas should also be set aside as presevation areas. A part of the "new deal" type program would involve expanding these areas by planting trees, etc. I would model it loosely on the National Park System and Wildlife Refuge areas in the US.
Now you have increased stability, less strife and rule of law. You also have preserves for wildlife and the beginnings of restoration of natural environments which have been terribly misused.
Let us also not forget the fisheries. Today, many of Africa's fisheries are illegal exploited by foreign fisherman (particularly, the Japanese and Russians). This must stop (Headline: HMRN (or US) Warships use illegal trawlers as target practice - I think that would run them off in short order). The fisheries must be assessed and some closed for periods of time to allow for recovery. Then sustainable fishing practices introduced.
There should also be "minimum standards" regarding pollution (not talking CO2 here - but the really nasty stuff). Companies which have moved operations there to avoid anti-pollution laws must either upgrade or clean-up and abandon. This is easily accomplished with a set of laws in conjuntion with an international boycott on those polluters.
Now we have much greater stability, much less strife and a surplus of food, some of which can be "saved" for years with bad harvests, some of which can also be exported to other African nations. Guess what comes next?
Tourism. In particular, I would focus on cultural, historical and particularly on eco-tourism. Again, this will provide more jobs, greater stability and prosperity as well as momentum.
Now we have the issue of their neighbors. This country would need to be protected from jeolous neighbors. I believe that could be achieved quite easily by both our militaries in the short term (and a good use of our troups). Protection of environments and wildlife should also be provided - poachers of both flora and fauna should be shot on sight. I don't think it would be that difficult for the native peoples to realize that the forest is of more value standing as well as the lion more valuable alive.
Once you have made real progress, which I think could happen in a span of 10-15 years, the country is a model - one who's prosperity would be the envy of many other countries. So you expand from there. I do realize that it is a 100 year project to "develop" Africa, but it can be done. Once the proper momentum has been achieved, it will continue to develop, not only in your first "model country" but elsewhere as well.
Certainly windmills would play a role, particularly in their traditional role - as pumps for irrigation - as you can store the water for when the wind is not blowing. But, lets be real, Africa has the coal, it is actually pretty "high grade coal" - meaning low sulfer and mercury content. Power plants should be built with today's technology (SO2, NOX and Mercury scrubbers for coal). Many international organizations today prevent the financing being provided to build coal plants in Africa, consequently, those which are built - are built as cheaply as possible - using technology we in the West outlawed and abandoned in the 70's. Stop this practice and provide the financing in grants and loans for the investment in cheap energy - which will allow for the intensive agricultural practices needed to both feed the people as well as allow for more natural areas to be preserved and restored.
Imagine such an Africa - it would be the number 1 tourist destination in the world - hands down - particularly given its proximity to Europe. It would not only feed itself, but also contribute to the world economy, rather than being the "drag" on the world economy it is today. Now you also have new markets for the west (and the developing east).
Of course a big key to this is stability and strict anti-corruption laws, both of which would encourage more investment...and so on...the initial investment to achieve some momentum is what is required. I believe there are several countries in Africa which could be used as this "prototype".
Perhaps I am living in "fantasy land" - but this is something that has really bothered me for at least 15 years. Sure, we provide food during famine - but that is not the answer. A few months ago, EDF proudly announced the largest single shipment of coal from Africa (ship unloaded in Amsterdam) for use in electricity generation. How can we deny the African's the use of their own coal.
I also believe that the preservation and restoration of environments would more than make up (as natural sinks) for the emissions from the coal plants Africa desparately needs.
IMHO, there have been two main drivers for the success and development of the West - cheap energy and cheap food. These are keys to developing Africa.
In my analisys of the "current crop" of green solutions for energy - I find them lacking. We in the west should focus on the "next generation" of "clean (and cheap) energy" rather than massive investments in inefficient solutions and artificial carbon markets.
I could write on this subject (development of Africa) for hours - but I think this gives you the basic idea.
I also think at the same time, we should abandon the current crop of "green energy solutions" - except in applications where they really make sense - and focus our monies and resources on the next generation - like fusion, hydrogen, others we have not even thought of yet. It is a 40-60 year timeframe to develop and implement these technologies on a wide scale - but if we spend our monies and resources on the current crop, it will cost a great deal - the entire energy generation and distribution system of the west need be replaced. If we do this in conjunction with "cap and trade" and corrupt offset programs such as CDM, we will not have the economic ability to develop the third world, nor adapt the next generation of viable energy sources.
Please "tear it apart" - I do look forward to your response.
Cheers.
BTW, I too admire the Greeks; however, they were as warlike and in some ways more barbaric than even the Romans...but that is another conversation...more later.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
At my "home" drop zone (Skydive Spaceland, outside of Houston), we have a lot of skydivers from the UK who come for several weeks during the winter to jump. I am also a BASE jumper (829 skydives, 39 BASE jumps) - and dream of the cliffs in Norway as well as the Italian Alps...I am hoping that in a couple of months, I will be able to do an "easy" BASE jump again - for now, my two BASE rigs are packed, ready and unfortunately in the closet...btw, who is your friend - skydiving is a small world, even if I don't know him/her, I bet we know people in common. More later
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry, Looks like you're seriously into it. I've always wanted to give it a go since watching Point Break years ago. Do you climb as well?
My mate's called Paul Twomey, best known as a UK climber (co-owner of the Bristol Climbing Academy) and also a DJ, but he's been into most outdoor/Xteme sports. Also done some movie camera and stunt work. He's been to the USA several times, mainly climbing (he was one of the team that took Jack Osborne up a big-wall climb in Yosemite), but he knows a whole heap of people from all over. Quite a few of his friends are climbers/base jumpers too.
I gave up climbing a few years ago with a bad elbow-tendon-injury, but am hoping to get back into it in a smaller way over the next year or so. I've started training again and it seems to be holding up.
I'm in a rush at the moment, just got in and now have to go and meet someone. I'll have a considered read of your development post in the next day or so.
Richard, thanks for letting us go so far off topic!
Complain about this comment
Hey Larry and Sheff Tim
Off topic? I thought for a moment I was on Facebook;-)
Larry I read your post and they are well thought through fortunately this site does not have baiters like some sites. I may be paranoid but what seems to happen on cif is that people will be insulted deliberately and quite rudely. If you respond to the insults you will suddenly have two or three baiters. They put you in for moderation and suddenly you no longer are allowed to post.
That's my whinge over.
The idea of a history blog is good. I know someone who believes that history should be at the core of all school curricula. Because it would tie in all the links between arts, science and socio economic conditions which lead to progress and disaster such as the group think that contributed in a large part to the second world war.
This group think on climate change, albeit less insidious, can and will lead to serious world problems.
Take care and remember accentuate the positive
Complain about this comment
@wrapupwarm
I am also on CIF and know exactly what you mean...but I still persist for some reason - I am not a quiter. I do really dislike the name-calling, labeling, and abuse. There are some though whom I get intelligent discourse and debate with - so I still post there quite frequently.
I must admit that I have let the "anti-american" sentiment (and European Superiority complex) displayed by many on CIF get the best of me at time, particularly when I am down. It has been hard these last nine months. I was about to give up on this forum until YW departed (or was kicked). It was just a constant stream of abuse and unfounded ridicule - don't agree with me, fine - but I respect your opinion (and those of others, like Tim - whom I don't necessarily agree with on some issues) - but I also feel like people like Tim respect my opinion as well. We may never agree, but I think we do learn from each other.
I have lived in the UK for 2 years, my mother lived there (Menwith Hill Air Base - for NSA - at the listening post, near Harrogate (sp??)). Some of my best friends are Brits. Both here and in the UK. I have always thought that while we may disagree, we can learn from each other and even if my opinion is not swayed, I can see "the other side" from such people. I recall when I worked for Ibadrola in Spain for a year (2000), I spent "give the colonies away day" (4th of July) in an Irish pub with a boatload of Brits in Madrid - we celebrated what is an American Holiday together, it was very nice. The US and UK are probably the closest allies of any two countries in the world - and I hope that relationship continues.
If you want "barbecue summer" - please come visit - I do have plenty of room in my home ( I have 2500 sq ft, very nice yard, full size pool table, tropical gardens, hottub, etc). I have had many strangers (skydivers) stay here, some from the UK - for weeks at a time. You, Tim, Jack, Mango, all welcome any time.
Here we are experiencing basically normal weather for this time of year - a little above average, but not much - its 42C - 45C outside right now and won't cool off til the end of September.
If any of ya'll end up down this way (Texas) I do hope you look me up. You can find my info on CIF (lkealey).
To respond further, I also believe that we do not teach enough history - there is so much to learn from, mistakes and successes from the past. I think that is part of the problem with the "liberal left" in the US is that they have no understanding of history or the reality of the world we live in. (which for the most part is not a nice place).
A history forum I think would be both stimulating and entertaining - as well as informative...and perhaps enlightening and eye opening for some...
Cheers Mate - and Thank You for your kind thoughts and wishes.
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
I look forward to you thoughts and critisisms. I do respect your opinion (even if we do not agree). I would really appreciate you thoughts and opinions regarding the development of Africa - for my entire life I have seen the same problems with the continent and its people - and very little done to change the situation there. I find it horrid and disgusting (same of SE Asia) - both of which I have seen first hand. Again, your thoughts and input would be greatly appreciated.
@Richard,@Shanta - my thanks as well for letting us go so far off topic. It is interesting how threads can evolve and I am finding this one particularly interesting and enlightening - cheers for that.
Back to Tim - yes, I was a climber (free-climber) long before I started skydiving and BASE jumping. I do believe I have met your friend - he would know me as "Crazy Larry" - a nick I got a very long time ago (in Central America - it was actually "loco Lorenzo"). My "thing" (discipline) in skydiving is what we call CRW - Canopy Relative Work - we open our parachutes at around 14,000 ft - and then build formations by docking parachutes. As I am done with Chemo (11 days out now!) I have been asked to do video for a couple of friends from Florida for the Nationals Competition in October - when the shuttle went up last Nov (14th) - we were in a plane at 14,500 ft, just outside the "exclusion zone" (30 miles) - we jumped out at T-3 minutes, opened over the Atlantic, 2 seconds out the door - and built a 3-stack (three parachutes "stacked" by landing upon each other's canopy and wrapping our feet in the lines of the guy below) - built it in 2 minutes and 30 seconds later watched the Shuttle go - it was magnificant. Well, those two Guys (Damien "omen" and "ballistic" bob) are competing in the Nationals - if I can get into shape, I will do the video for them. It is a "big deal" to be in the Nationals - and an honor for me to be asked. I do have a qualified back-up for them assuming I won't be able to get back in shape to do it...but we shall see. It was 3 days after the shuttle launch in November 08 that I crawled into bed. I am hopeful that if I keep fighting hard and work hard, I will have one more shot to do something - but they give me no guarantees (I went through this 12 years ago, and was told I had no chance of living 5 years). Enough of that...
The climb you are talking about in Yosemite is "El Capitan" - it was actually the first real "mecca" for BASE jumpers until the National Park Service banned base jumping in all National Parks - I have not climbed El Capitan - but I have a number of friends who have - it is in my "bucket list" - but I do have serious doubts I will ever be able to do so.
Here is something you might find interesting - it is Snake River Canyon in Idaho (not far from where Evil Knevil tried to jump the canyon on his "rocket motercycle".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seb3fJcCisw
Cheers Mate.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@ Larry Kealey
As I look out of my window on one of the greatest cities in the world, London, the streets are awash with streams of water it has been raining solidly for 9 hours and that's why Brits booked holidays abroad. I don't know the difference between climate and weather?
I try, not always successfully, to keep politics out of the climate change debate because it muddies the waters.
Anyway I provide a link to my fellow countrymans poem which has it roots in weather a Childs Christmas in Wales.
http://www.bfsmedia.com/MAS/Dylan/Christmas.html
Nos da
Complain about this comment
Are future generations a hundred years hence going to be left with a thousand rusty finger nails sticking out of the ocean as testament of some misplaced current D-Day pretentious like vigour?
I peep back here and see that my allusion to a current military/weather relation has spawned a line of discussion that I now butt into.
We now know in hindsight that the D-Day weather man James Stagg was within the bounds of probability with his predictions the day before the D-Day landing, this was his human decision - someone put their ass on the line and went into history and good for him.
We sometimes forget that his contribution, albeit a tipping point was not the sole consideration to the future president of America – Eisenhower. Blame/credit offset to a weather man? Why?
We forget that it turned out that the seas were still rough and that air cover was unable to operate - virtually no guns taken out, hence the bloody drama of Omaha, and not long after the landings the Mulberry harbours were made redundant by channel storms, supplies cut off at a crucial time– the whole invasion was close to be being abandoned.
These factors sometimes are forgotten and mean that a story about human resolve on the ground, determination in the face of real effort and struggle, is somehow appropriated by a somewhat febrile modern tendency to make some small contribution (in this case a fortuitous weather prediction and a dodgy future president ) mean more than it actually contributed. Where have I heard that before?
And why?
Unlike Hans Gruber I wasn’t trained in the classics but I think I am right in my estimation that most military campaigners would give everything for good weather on the day of their surprise attack.
They would give even more for full knowledge of the weather. Or failing that a scapegoat.
Value, is the key. Not pretend value you can manufacture in the Sunday Supplements or the BBC. Real. Tangible. Worth.
The recovered £4.5 million that was diverted from the MOD to the MO, wasn’t for reading the weather 4 days in advance – we can all do that along with heads of Iran, N.Korea, and whoever else and their dog who has a computer that can log on to a weather satellite radar site.
It was for a putative seasonal knowledge that started to be claimed not long after the historically receding 2003 French heat wave that still has many AGW activists panting.
The MOD was forced to pay for some claimed new skill that the MO said they had developed – which turns out to be more in publicity than skill.
I said above about the MO service to the MOD that: "I admit to be not too clear about what it was supposed to serve useful as." and no clue has been elicited yet on this page or I expect any possible future investigative TV program.
What are the justifications for the claims of skill of any large publicly funded organisations that have large budgets and deal in predictions? They will all one day be – by the laws of probability - right and no doubt command overriding media approval, do we ever care if they are being a waste of time and resources?
Complain about this comment
Any project manager will recognize the classic symptoms of mission creep in the 'war on carbon'.
The war on carbon started as an attempt to avert a sci-fi apocalypse scenario.
Now it has grown two unrelated side-projects:
1) Yet another effort to help the 3rd world.
2) A 'green deal' effort to rescue our own economies from the recession.
These are all independent projects which should be considered on their own merits.
It's worth noting that 3rd world countries that are starting to succeed are doing this through their own efforts. India and China have both started moving forwards after dumping the economic bits of communism and through their own efforts.
Complain about this comment
@Jack,
while I agree with you on India and China to an extent - you must also recognize that labor and manufacturing of most things has been "offshored" to China and many, many service oriented businesses (including IT development, call centers, etc) have been offshored to India - It is also worth noting that China and India are the two worst polluters on the planet (not talking CO2 here - talking real pollution).
I also agree with regards to your assertion about "creep" and two side projects - they should be handled independently.
My posts around developing the third world are relavent because it is the "green movement" which in many cases is preventing this development. The CDM mechanism and offsets will do nothing to develop the third world. They only provide an easy way for the corrupt and unscrupilous to make money for nothing - or even worse - for exploiting and polluting the environment.
With regards to the "green deal" - anyone who believes that the programs and plans presented will rescue our economies from the recession is living in fantasy land.
The root cause of EVERY RECESSION since WWII (in the US - and lets face it, when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold) has been the result of a spike in energy prices - including this one. People here bought homes which most could afford at the time when they bought them - and then their electric bills doubled and the price of gas went from $1 to $5 a gallon in the space of a couple of years. Also consider that the price of energy affects EVERY SINGLE VALUE CHAIN. So, the consumer is hit with higher prices on everything, from all sides and tax revenues decline. People who bought houses and had disposable incomes of $1000 or more a month found themselves with NO disposable income and not enough money to pay the bills. They could no longer afford those houses which led to the "housing bubble burst". Everyone trying to sell their house - and no one buying, bankrupting the mortgage industry...and the dominoes fall...
The foundations of our economy is based upon the spending ability of the middle class. Take that away, and middle class people can't buy - or are afraid to - and it ripples through the entire economy. The economy is starting to show signs of recovery right now only because energy prices have fallen and the usual "summer spike" (in energy prices) in the US was very short lived.
If the "green deal" is passed here - forget about recovery - and start thinking depression...make energy and food prices cheaper and the middle class will begin to spend again - which will drive the economy forward with strength. In the end, all the costs and profits made by "green profiteers" comes from the middleclass through higher prices and taxes.
cheap energy=prosperity
The current "crop" of green solutions are neither cheap nor viable - nor is it reasonable to re-build all our infrastructure and make vast cultural changes in a short time frame - it will only bankrupt us.
We do need better sources of energy - we should invest in the "next generation" - not the stuff that is out there today. In 50 years, with a strong economy, we will have better, cheaper energy - with a weak economy and world wide depression, it will take 100 years....
Take that one to the bank. I make few predictions - but most have come to pass, just as I said. In Nov 2007, I predicted oil prices would top $150 a barrel the following summer - and they were at $160 in July 2008. You can find the article where I made the prediction on the Energy Tribune website - it was published late Jan/early Feb, but I turned by copy into the editor (Robert Bryce, a friend) in late Nov. At that time, analyst were all over the place with predictions from $50 to $150 for the following summer. Check it out.
I told a friend last November to sell out of the market and hedge 10% off the top in cash, of the remainder - put 1/3 in gold, 1/3 in quality bonds and 1/3 in shorts (options) on spiders and the Dow (spiders are index shares on the S&P 500)...then start buying back in when the dow hits 7700 at 15% per month (I was predicting a bottom at around 7500). Sure enough - take out a calculator and figure out how well he did.
I made my new prediction - we need only wait a year to see -to iterate: if we continue down this "green" path, the signs of recovery will be short lived and we will have a global depression.
While some may think I am BS-ing here - after all, hindsight is 20/20 - if you read it right - take a look at the article I wrote on oil at the Energy Tribune's website. I can also point you to the pilot whom I gave the investment advice to just before I crawled into bed last Nov.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@DavidRoss writes:
"Unlike Hans Gruber I wasn’t trained in the classics but I think I am right in my estimation that most military campaigners would give everything for good weather on the day of their surprise attack.
They would give even more for full knowledge of the weather. Or failing that a scapegoat."
-------------end of quote-----------------
I would disagree with that assertion. With today's technology, it is often preferable to have "poor weather" for attack. In WWII - it was the Russians who wanted cold harsh weather as protection against their invaders (the Germans). They were better adapted to it - and could mount counter-attacks better in the weather. You can go back thousands of years and find similar examples.
I don't really know about the rest between the MOD and MO - so I shall not comment.
Interesting read though.
Cheers for that.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Bloggers
I also hear that Chelsea is "kicking butt" - my team.
Cheers.
[thought we could use another "sidebar"]
Complain about this comment
@DavidRoss
I hope I did not come across as rude or anything like that - as far as I am concerned, I always welcome other viewpoints, thoughts and debate. I won't speak for Tim, Jack and Mango - but in my experience, they seem to enjoy it as well.
I found your post very interesting - you appear to be intelligent, polite and very knowledgeable. I look forward to your next post.
The only issue I ever have is when it deteriorates to "name-calling", "labeling" and abuse, as opposed to intelligent discource and lively debate. I believe most feel the same as well.
Richard and Shanta have been kind enough to allow us to move this blog in a lot of directions - I think because it has been intelligent and polite discourse, discussion and debate. If we were "off-topic" and rude - I don't believe the moderators would provide such leaway (I could be wrong - moderators??)
Cheers for your comment.
Kealey
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
sorry to disturb the love-in boys ;)
richard / shanta et al,
what do you think about the latest report from Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark and Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland published in Geology, which seems to support Svensmarks theory that the climate was highly influenced by cosmic rays and "shows a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics"?
Knudsen and Riisager are essentially reporting the earths magnetic field has a significant effect on the earths climate. This links well with Svensmarks theory first published in 2001 (i think)
http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
Complain about this comment
another nail in the coffin of AGW?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-of-ice-ages-solar-and-earth-wobble/#more-9788
Complain about this comment
even the bbc are trying to nail greenpeace - have i died and gone to heaven? lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8184392.stm
Hardtalk's Sackur interviews the outgoing director of GreenPeace, Dr Gerd Leipold, about Climate Change.
First Sackur attacked the anti-democratic and over-alarmist stance taken by Greenpeace – he was particularl virulent with the Catastrophic Alarmism used by their propogandist wings!
Sackur then made the claim that Greenpeace was itself tainted with the badge of “Denialism” just as much as the sceptics were. He poo-poohed the idea trumpeted in June by GP that the Greenland Ice Sheets would be gone by 2030 or so, saying this is unscientific and ridiculous, Dr Gerd Leipold, who by now seemed shell-shocked, conceded that he thought it unlikely, but was not responsible for all the press releases of his organisation.
I'm begining to like the BBC again :)
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey
"I would disagree with that assertion. With today's technology, it is often preferable to have "poor weather" for attack. In WWII - it was the Russians who wanted cold harsh weather as protection against their invaders (the Germans)."
Thanks for your response; I find yours and all of the responses here interesting. And I appreciate your point; today we can fly blind and operate robot drones in virtually any conditions, so yes my point is probably more relevant to the olden days.
Although the D-Day tacticians where more concerned about the surprise effect of their time and location of their attack. The surprise effect of the weather was un-manageable. Indeed, the Germans, like the Russians before them, took comfort in a supposed defensive effect supplied by the weather. Rommel was absent from the Atlantic wall for his wife’s birthday on D-Day because of the observed seasonal stormy weather, if I’ve got my movie knowledge right :)
In the D-Day case it turns out the Allies punched a hole in the weather, when Stagg gave the nod.
Other military/weather examples are Napoleon and Hitler being stymied by an unexpected extreme of winter. The kind of thing they may have paid their eye-teeth to know about in advance.
I think that all these hindsight military/weather examples give a clue to how powerful and valuable a predictive ability of even a month ahead in the weather could be, and lends some credibility to my thoughts that while some at the Met Office may genuinely think they can supply some advance warnings for health or tactical military value, their feeling of already owning this power has overwhelmed and blinded them. I think they are beginning to let their powerful computers kid them that they own more skill than they really have.
We all know how the results of a relatively close prediction – even just on the right side of wrong - can be picked over for years and spun to make it seem more skilfully correct than it was. It just so happens here that the MO has really been unlucky and no amount of spin can save them. This may be a good thing in the long term.
Complain about this comment
@David
As we say in Texas - close only counts in horseshoes (the game).
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
@Mango,
Your posts seem to re-inforce my opinion all along - we simply don't know enough about earths climate system. We learn new things every day and we have barely yet begun to scratch the surface. (hence my stance as a skeptic).
Sorry for the "Lovefest", but I do find the civility of late much more enjoyable and enlightening than the abuse, namecalling, labeling, etc...that was my point. Don't you?
cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
larry
exactly, much more cordial
x
Complain about this comment
#66. ' another nail in the coffin of AGW?'
Why? It's been known for several decades that Milankovitch cycles were the cause of both the initiation of and ending of ice ages.
http://sites.google.com/site/thepaleoceneeocenethermalmaxim/2-paleocene-climate/why-earth-s-climate-is-different-today-1/ice-ages-and-the-role-of-co2
See also:
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/howard2/theory.htm
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Note the page you link to also has the paper's author saying:
"There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun.”
In other words CO2 etc were feedbacks that 'amplified' the process. i.e. as CO2 levels fell it accelerated cooling, as CO2 levels rose it accelerated and increased the level of warming. This is well known.
Astronomical cycles clearly show in ocean sea bed cores going back tens of millions of years, these were first obtained in the 1960s/70s and provided firm evidence for the astronomical cycle hypothesis.
A 1979 book 'Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery' by John Imbrie went into how ice ages were first identified (a very 'hot topic' a century ago) and how James Croll's astronomical cycles theory originated, was refined by Milankovitch and later evidenced in some depth.
Imbrie's calculations suggest the current interglacial will end in 23,000 years time; this is supported by ice cores from Vostock in Antarctica. (Imbrie also devoted the last chapter of his book to his concern that rising CO2 levels would alter earth's climate state.)
Two recent books covering ice ages are:
Ice, Mud and Blood by C. Turney. A good introduction to past climate changes going back deep in time. Covers the roles played by the oceans, ocean currents, volcanoes, tectonic plates and astronomical (Milankovitch) cycles etc as well as the role of CO2 and GHGs.
Frozen Earth: The Once and Future Story of Ice Ages by D. Macdougall.
Ice ages and astronomical cycles are also covered in many other text books.
Many sceptic sites rely on the lack of knowledge on the part of the public in order to try and bamboozle and confuse.
Complain about this comment
@Mango (#66)
In reading the article linked in your post - I see things like "we have pinned this down now" and "now we know" - of this I am skeptical. I see little doubt in the article, and that is always a concern to me: Overstated confidence and understated doubt. This theory is not new - and while I support much of it - what change caused this to happen 2.5 million years ago? Was it gravitational forces within the solar system - which while are very predictive on relatively long timescales - for the most part - they are chaotic in nature. Small gravitational influences taking place now (or 10000 years ago) could be changing these cycles as we speak. What will the future really hold? Do we really understand it now? The forces and orbital mechanics of the solar system are predictable on short time frames, but still incredibly complex and must be modeled using iterative techniques rather than closed form solutions (that nasty chaotic component - the center manifold - again).
Every question we think we have answered only reveals another half dozen questions for which we have no answer...(good answers $10, bad answers $2, dumb looks still free...;)
While I believe cosmic and solar radiactive forcing plays a role, I don't believe we really understand how this piece fits in terms of effects under different conditions and the overall climate system. Particularly with regards to feedbacks with many other drivers and forcing agents. (some of which we are currently unaware of...) Just as (IMHO) we really don't understand the (Earth's climate) system well enough to understand the role of CO2 under different climate conditions and concentrations.
The climate of earth is affected and subjected to forcings from both within and without (IMHO). By that, I mean, there are both terrestrial and extraterrestrial drivers - many of which I believe we are at this point oblivious to or very ignorant of...
Rather than taking the article at face value - I would iterate - it really demonstrates how little we really know - and how much more there is to learn before we even have a basic fundamental understanding of the workings of, much less the capability to model, earth's climate system (which I don't believe we will ever be able to do reliably over long periods).
There are some interesting insights and study presented - but like all other theories, it will evolve as our understanding develops further.
Cheers - did enjoy the read.
Complain about this comment
@Tim
While physics actively seeks the "Unified Theory" (of quantum mechanics and relativity) - I believe we should admit that we are still searching for the "Unified Theory" of climate change. There are many issues which cannot be reconciled. I would use a jigsaw puzzle as a metaphore - we pick up some of the pieces and examine them - make what seem to be reasonable conclusions regarding those pieces (like this looks like it belongs in the corner, this has two holes and two protrusions, etc) - but some of the pieces are still in the box (so we have yet to see or study them) and others we have not examined closely - lets also assume this jigsaw puzzle is a very difficult one - so we have put a couple of pieces together at this point, but we are not really sure where they go in terms of the larger picture, nor how they fit with many of the other pieces. Now consider the puzzle to be not 2-D (with "fits" on basically a flat plane), but 4-D where the puzzle is more like a geometric 3-D shape which changes over time.
The PETM as I recall, is a topic of interest (I tried your link to your page at one time, but it came up "Not Found" - could you repost please - I would like to read it). One of the issues I have with drawing conclusions on current and future climate states based upon historical climatic changes is that as complex as the climate system is - it has evolved and changed much over time. We have theories about the PETM, but the world was a much different place at that time - everything from ocean currents to wind patterns, orbital dynamics (in particular, the areas of focus on Milankovich cycles). So not only do we have very complex mathematical descriptions for poorly understood processes, but those equations which describe climate would also evolve over time.
To be brief (I could go on a long time...lol), take the Milankovich Cycles as a way to explain ice ages. The amplification associated with CO2 under this scenario (earth warms a little due to orbital changes, causing an increase in CO2, which then provides additional warming, causing more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere...positive feedback). I have two issues which perhaps you can address - first is that under this scenario, feedback from CO2 would appear to have either a very small positive feedback or a negative feedback - in order for the very small changes in orbital dynamics to cause the end of an interglacial. Second would be that while these cycles can be correlated with ice ages and interglacials for the last (what?) 2.5 million years - what about before then? Were the cycles not there? What was the change that turned the earth cooler around 3 million years ago and spawned the string of ice ages?
Regarding the first, if one looks at the Vostok cores, we (I think can agree - as you have stated) that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. It does not seem to me that the feedback associated with CO2 forcing is not constant - this feedback being a constant is a "given" for many (if not most/all) of the climate models in use today. The IPCC estimates the value of this constant at k=5.56F (or 3.0C if you prefer). I would think it more likely that k is not a constant, but dependent upon may factors:
So let us supposed k = F(C0, C1, X0, X1, X2...XN) bascially a tensor field. Then, the question of temperature rise associated with a doubling of CO2 concentrations becomes a much more difficult question to answer. I believe the IPCC uses
delta T = k * ln (C1/C0), making our substitution we have
delta T = F(T,C0,C1,X0,X1,X2...Xn) ln (C1/C0).
I base this assumption on the idea that there are both positive and negative feedbacks associated with CO2 forcings within both the atmospheric and global CO2 cycles. [Note, As I cannot place subscripts here, the numbers in above equation as well as "n" are all subscripts - as well as what follows.]. What we are really after (IMHO) is the "net" feedback associated with CO2 forcing under specific conditions.
Let us also consider that there are other forcings (such as the Milankovich cycles) and many others (I also believe we are still unaware of many of them - the pieces of the puzzle still in the box) which are also inter-related...so, consider:
X1 = f1(T, C0, C1, Y0, Y1, Y2...Ym, X0, X1, X2...Xn),
X2 = f2(T, C0, C1, Y0, Y1, Y2...Ym, X0, X1, X2...Xn)
...
Xn = fn(T, C0, C1, Y0, Y1, Y2...Ym, X0, X1, X2...Xn)
and of course, Y1 through Ym are again functions of the same variables as X1...Xn.
Make the substutions into the previous equation and its really starting to look ugly (I won't go through all the typing here - but I think you get the picture). This seems a more likely scenario to myself than a "constant" of 5.56F
While we do have theories for this and that - and some mechanisms (climate) which we are aware of and even some which are fairly well understood to a point, we lack the "Unified Theory". We may understand some of the interactions under certain conditions to an extent; however, we really have only scratch the surface of needed understanding.
I am not sure you are getting my point here - but it really boils down to feedback is not constant but essentially a tensor function whose value is dependent upon many conditions. For example, CO2 absorbtion by the oceans is dependent upon CO2 concentrations in both the atmosphere and the ocean as well as temperatures and pressures of each (which themselves are not uniform nor constant), salinity is also a factor as well as CO2 conversion rates within the oceans, effectiveness of natural sinks, etc... - which in tern depend upon many factors. ad nauseum
I would be interested in your thoughts regarding this. This assumption does complicate things quite a bit; however, it would seem to be more reasonable than a "universal constant" - and I believe much evidence exists to suggest this alternative theory.
To put it simply - in viewing the climate system, feedback associated with CO2 forcing could be positive or negative - depending upon a number of factors - as opposed to the "magic number" of 5.56F. (3.0C)
Cheers.
PS - I hope this track is not too boring - and let me know when you want to jump off the cliff...lol (I don't know if you checked out the youtube link...).
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry,
The YouTube bridge-jumps look like good adrenalin rushes; think I'd like a lot more air under me for a first jump. You might have met Paul; he's been to Panama a few times, and Peru too.
There's a lot in your posts, so I'll just reflect on just a few points, mainly on Africa.
The Greeks (to lump many different cities and civilisations spread over a few thousand years, covering a large geographic area) were quite a blood-thirsty lot; but they produced many key philosophers, mathematicians etc (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid etc) and schools of philosophical thought.
The Romans produced surprising few, fewer still of major significance: Pliny the Elder, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Cicero and a handful of others; even then they largely developed ideas originating from the earlier Greeks; e.g. Aurelius (The Richard Harris character in Gladiator) was of the Stoic school.
Re:' campaigners would give everything for good weather on the day of their surprise attack'.
I think the point is that while the Russian winter has twice been of great advantage to the Russians (Napoleon & Hitler's invasions) they probably wouldn't have chosen blizzard conditions to attack in; particularly if air support was required.
AFRICA:
I agree that the US Constitution/Bill of Rights is a good model for a democracy (the highpoint of Enlightenment thinking). If a country adopts them then well and good, but democracy in European countries has evolved slightly differently in each one' even if using the US model African countries would all have their own twists on it.
Stability and corruption issues are certainly key, along with an absence of civil wars (Darfur, Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia etc); development depends on good governance. Some pundits see Ghana as such a hope for the future.
One of the most depressing books I've read recently was: 'The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence' by M. Meredith. State after state has failed. It's difficult to name ones south of the Sahara that haven't; S. Africa may be the only one, though that has its own problems.
(I can't say things were better with colonisation, Belgium's occupation of the Congo, for example, was a litany of atrocities and one of its legacies - the artificial distinctions between Tsusti and Hutu, that didn't exist previously - led to the more recent genocide in Rwanda. The boundaries of African nations are wholly artificial, resulting from the carving up of Africa and this often resulted in opposing ethnic/tribal groupings being put into the same countries etc.)
You see a major role in using coal and oil (I think solar has immense potential in Africa) but the unpalatable fact - as you mention - is that the developed nations continue to consume much of Africa's resources, including oil and coal.
China seems intent on strip-mining Africa of its minerals (and coal & oil) to feed its manufacturing sector and economic growth; the US will soon be getting a quarter of its oil imports from Africa, mainly Nigeria and Angola. Other examples include agricultural produce, fishing and so on. In terms of allocating resources in today's world the principle seems to be robbing African Peter to pay the developed Paul.
Persuading the developed world to stop taking resources from Africa would be a significant step, but seems unlikely at present.
I also agree that technological developments have to be pursued to supply energy etc in the future. Technology has a lot of potential to offer and research should be well funded.
The tourism potential of Africa is enormous. What current wildlife reserves need are stronger government commitment to stop the poaching of the larger endangered species - gorilla, elephant etc. (Persuading the Chinese to stop using body parts of rare animals as medicines would help too.) But peace and stability is a pre-requisite, along with any profits remaining inside Africa. Again much of the tourism is run by western companies that take much of the profits.
Education is a key factor in Africa, and persuading educated Africans to stay and work inside their own countries and not look for higher incomes outside it.
Being more positive, there is some good sustainable development work going on in Africa, but there are also some hard lessons being learnt too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/katineblog/2009/mar/26/water-projects-wasted-money
Development needs in SE and S Asia are very different (Some Asian countries are quite well developed.), but then Asia has a very different history to Africa.
Hope you are fit in time for the Nationals.
Complain about this comment
On the topic of Africa and Solar power I've come across (From the BBC Spaces and Places blog) this website for a foundation hoping to use the Sahara to generate large amounts of electricity.
Yet again they see the electricity flowing out of N. Africa to the developed European countries; but there seems to be growing awareness that this could be a feasible scheme.
http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/
If solar energy could help power Europe it could certainly help power Africa.
Complain about this comment
The Desertec scheme relies on a new style of transformer.
This takes a weak source of energy and uses huge subsidies from taxpayers to create a weak and over-priced output.
Complain about this comment
And you think energy supplies haven't been subsidised in the past or aren't subsidised at present?
"Governments spend as much as $300 billion a year to keep fuel prices low or to help producers, money that often is wasted and fails to help the poor, the U.N. Environment Program said in a report Tuesday."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-08-26-energy_N.htm
"The study estimates that the [US] federal government has provided $725 billion in energy subsidies (including R&D funding and tax breaks) over the last 50 years. The biggest beneficiaries? The oil and gas industry."
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/09/which_energy_in.html
£10bn UK Government Fuel Subsidy To Airlines:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-airlines-16310bn-government-fuel-subsidy-842770.html
Hooked On (nuclear energy) Subsidies. (A libertarian viewpoint.)
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8792
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Complain about this comment
Hi bloggers !
The '£10bn UK Government Fuel Subsidy To Airlines' is not a subsidy at all. It's fantasy-journalism.
Airline fuel is exempt from VAT (sales tax) in the same way that fuel for ships is exempt from VAT.
Someone just invented a number: "how much tax would the airlines have paid if they had to pay the same price-gouging rates of tax that motorists pay on fuel for their cars".
To pretend this is a subsidy is ludicrous.
Complain about this comment
I believe this type of 'tax-concession' would be called a called a 'tax-break' or in the USA, as Jack mentions above it's one denied to road-hauliers, motorists, trawlers etc.
It reduces costs to airlines (and income to govt.) by giving a 'tax-exemption' (or reduced tax) to an industry.
If the govt charged VAT but gave the industry £10bn, that's a direct subsidy; by giving a VAT tax exemption worth £10bn it's an indirect subsidy.
Definition: "Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more - INDIRECT SUBSIDIES - include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions."
From: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/subsidies
Complain about this comment
Ha ha ha !
The govt used to tax windows in houses. They stopped taxing windows in houses. Does this now count as a subsidy for windows ?
Complain about this comment
If one transport industry is exempt sales-tax on fuel (which is a large part of airline costs) whilst another (e.g. road hauliers which compete with airlines for business) has to pay the full sales-tax on fuel then the first industry is getting an indirect subsidy. They can use the saving to either reduce charges to customers or add to their profits.
I think most people can understand how not having to paying a tax is to an industries advantage; it's a conscious policy decision by a govt. to help that industry - a tax break (or tax exemption) is an indirect subsidy, it saves that industry money.
If VAT (sales tax) on fuel was completely abolished then the savings would be passed on fairly to all industries and individuals; but that isn't the case here.
The VAT (sales tax) on fuel has been effectively abolished for one industry, but all the others still have to pay it. The one industry that isn't paying that tax is being subsidised.
Governments and industries across the world fully understand the advantages of tax-breaks.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_break
Complain about this comment
@Tim, @Jack
I must agree with Tim - a "Tax Break" is an indirect subsidy. In the US, most energy companies enjoy certain Tax Breaks because of the massive R&D costs - I am ok, to a certain extent with Tax Breaks (as opposed to direct subsidies) - because while the gov't does "lose money" by providing the break - it does trickle to the consumer AND it does allow for more investment.
Tim, I think the example you provided is not a really good one - airlines vs. trucking - because they really don't compete.
While I do support "Tax Breaks" to a degree - I am generally (with very few exceptions) against direct subsidies.
Look at the US Auto industry - they just got "bailed out" - direct subsidies - to build cars that no one is buying...
So now, they are subsidising dealers with $4500 incentives to give to car buyers (which it is now estimated that half will be "repo-ed" within a year). Hello? Is there anyone at home? knock knock knock? Is the head hollow????
Cheers Mates
Complain about this comment
@Jack,
To me, that seems a bad example as well. (Did they really tax windows???? - dang...;). Sounds like they aboloshed a tax.
Now, if they gave you money to buy better windows - then it would be a subsidy...
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
Although I haven't studied this tax issue in detail (so won't express an opinion), I am not so sure it is always so "clear cut".
In the US, we have a fuel tax. It was adopted as a "fair" way to pay for the required infrastruture - roads, bridges, etc - the more gas you use - the more "wear and tear" you put on the road. Even taking into account milage - cars or trucks with poorer mpg ratings tend to cause more wear and tear because they are heavier - and even lighter vehicles pay their share if they drive more miles - use more gas...
So the tax was instituted on the users of the infrastructure to help pay for that infrastructure.
I have had several boats. Boats do not use the roads, thus, they are "exempt" from the tax. So, if you save your receipts for the gas for your boat - you can deduct it at the end of the year. Seems fair to me - what about you?
Cheers.
Kealey
PS - Did they really tax windows? (dang...just can't get over that...lol)
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry
We've had some headline making fuel protests over here in the past few years, by truckers (haulers) etc protesting about the high costs of fuel taxes etc - one of their grievances was the tax break for air fuel.
There is competition between truckers and airlines for freight trade; there's a large air-trade that is just freight.
If a business needs to get (non-perishable) goods from, say, London to Berlin and have planned ahead enough, then trucking it over should be an attractive proposition. But a lot goes by air. The truckers argue that the fuel tax break airlines get promotes unfair competition.
There was a 'window tax' in England a few hundred years ago. It was the origin of the phrase 'daylight robbery', as people did brick up windows to avoid paying it. It was one of those war taxes that then hung around a long time afterwards.
http://www.longparish.org.uk/history/windowtax.htm
Every govt since the dawn of civilisation. - particularly those imposed by force - has imposed taxes; some in history appear to have no interest except their own enrichment and glorification.
But all govt's in democratic market-led countries realise that they also have to encourage R & D, attract foreign companies and sometimes support fledging or struggling domestic industries. I understand in the USA companies even move from state to state depending on what incentives they get, tax breaks included.
I'm not opposed in principle to either govt intervention or free market economics. All governments (and elections) are about what balance should be struck, what the priorities are?
I think electoral politics is cyclical. Sometimes the public likes the idea of lower taxes, less state intervention, de-regulation etc; but when they have think its gone a bit too far they elect a party that goes the other way, when they think that party have think it's gone a bit too far in raising taxes, promoting interventionist policies etc they again elect a party that promotes lower taxes, less state intervention, de-regulation etc and so on.
It's one reason no party in a democracy ever holds power for ever. Of course the issues of the day change, but generally the cycle is just part of an ongoing process of checks and balances.
I hate to say it but I think the US auto industry could well be dying; of course things might improve generally in a few years, but it might not. Of course there's the jobs issue to consider, America's standing (automobiles are strongly associated with America), but it might be romantic attachment or a genuine last ditch attempt to keep it going that's behind the subsidies.
Myself - I'm a little cynical about the vast bail-outs going to a (banking) industry that starkly showed last year it didn't have a clue what it was doing, or seemed to care, providing the short-term profits were there.
We live in interesting times.
Complain about this comment
"When you're forecasting so far ahead you have to base the forecast in probabilistic terms..."
Would this be coming from a representative of the same organisation who confidently issued an 80 year prediction for the UK's temperatures? And yes, I do know that weather is not climate - but if our predictive capabilities for small scale localised conditions over a short interval are so poor, I don't know why I'm supposed to be so impressed by doomy long term scenarios.
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
I would agree regarding the cyclical nature of the electorate - it swings left for a while and then swings right - when people get fed up, it goes the other way...my preference is when the US congress is divided - one pary controls one house - the other party, the other house. When one party has both houses and executive branch - too much gets done. When it is divided - only what really needs to be done and should be done gets passed.
In case you have not noticed - I am not a big fan of government. I prefer less to more.
Unfortunately, the vision of the founding fathers of the US has been lost. Those who govern today are not "of the people" nor "by the people". Our congress just gave the military more than they asked for - $626B - and included were new helicopters for the president - which neither he nor the pentagon wants - but they are assembled in the congressional district of a powerful congresswoman. Same with the C-17 program - the Air Force says we have enough, congress wants three more. The pork is outrageous.
Regarding the US Constitution/Bill of Rights as a model - I really only use that as an example. But I do believe there should be a "minimum standard" for both democracy and human rights not just for the Africa Experiment I have dreamed of, but also to "have a voice" on the world stage. I would even go for "having a voice" - but not a vote in the UN without the "minimum standards".
I must also admit - I am a junkie - an adrenaline junkie. You should have at least 200-300 skydives under your belt before you jump from a bridge (or building, antenna, cliff, crane, etc). In the US, you are required to make 2 tandem jumps before you can go with your own parachute (and an instructor).
Regarding the auto industry - it has been dying for some time (in the US). Part of the problem has been the unions - toyota has factories here and pay only half as much for assembly line workers - an no where near the retirement benefits. Auto workers retire with 100% pay - where they are covered by the UAW. The US auto industry must re-make itself or die. If it dies, a new one will be born from the ashes. There are a number of other issues with Detroit and the US auto industry, the sad thing is that the government (i.e. - taxpayers) will end up picking up the tab for all the benefits and liabilities of the industry.
I won't even get into giving all the money to the financial institutions - and even if you believe in the dire magnitude of the CO2 problem - the only solution presented or under serious consideration is cap and trade and Carbon markets - who do you think will be running those markets? The gov't? don't think so - it will be those same financial institutions...are you scared yet?
One day, I hope I get to argue with you in a pub over a pint (or a dozen).
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Paulcarps
I must agree with you for the most part. Keep in mind though that the 2080 "predictions" are not "predictions" but "projections" - there is a difference. The MO "Projections" are based upon 300 runs of a flawed model which produced wildly differing results from the various conditions input for the 300 runs - they averaged the results to come up with the projections. It was not really a modeling exercise - but a statistical exercise. Nothing more.
I must also agree that weather is not climate - and modeling the weather for the next month is a much simplier problem than modeling the climate for the next 100 years. What we define as "normal" is nothing more than statistical averages for temperature, precipitation, etc, over the last 150 years (less in many places) - nothing more than statistics.
I really dislike hearing words like "unpresidented", etc - as many times, I can point to examples off the top of my head that show "unprecidented" is not the case. For example - the Vikings established a colony in Greenland around 900 AD, they abandoned it a couple of hundred years later as the climate turned colder. the ruins of this agricultural community have only been uncovered by melting glaciers in the last 10-15 years - and it is not yet warm enough to grow the same crops they grew there during that period. It would seem to me that it was warmer there (in Greenland) than it is now - at least that is what the evidence suggest to me. Also, the climate change which forced them to abandon the colony happened over a period of a few decades...
Well, I think you get the point.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
With respect to the lack of tax on aviation fuel you also need to know that, for international flights, there is a international agreement (called the Chicago Convention) to which most countries in the world have signed up. This agreement explicitly bans the taxation of fuel for international air transport.
So even if the UK wanted to tax aviation fuel used in international flights it wouldn't be allowed to unless it renegotiated the agreement and got every country in the world to sign up to it or decided that it no longer wished for the agreement to apply - in which case countries could levy huge taxes on all British registered or destined aircraft.
For domestic flights it is a different matter - in the UK domestic aviation fuel is taxable at 17.5% but has no duty on it. However in the UK all flights are subject to VAT at a rate of 0% - so any VAT charged to the airline on fuel is reclaimed in its VAT return as input tax with no output tax on the consumer. Other countries (such as France) charge VAT on domestic flights (I think at 5% for France but I could be wrong).
So it isn't really a tax break for the airline (as any VAT charged is reclaimed) but a tax break for the passengers as they don't have to pay VAT. This is, however, more than made up for most UK flights by Airline Passenger Duty and the recharging of all State costs with respect to security and immigration etc to airports (which then on charge these to airlines and again to passengers).
Complain about this comment
Off topic but is there going to be any comment on the Hadley Centre / University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit loss of data and Freedom of Information fracas with respect to the original data for the HADCRU temperature data set?
From my readings of it they have admitted to losing much of the past data - which makes independent verification of the temperature series pretty much impossible.
In addition CRU have stated that much of the data is under confidentiality agreements (which they have mainly lost) so can't be disclosed to anyone (reading the few agreements there are they can't be disclosed to the Hadley Centre either - which makes the HADCRU temperature series a breach of copyright).
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6797
My personal opinion is that the best way to "convert" skeptics (of which I am one) to the cause is by full disclosure of data so that we can run through the calcs and see that, indeed, climate change is a real problem. It simply makes me more skeptical when they refuse to release or, worse, lose the data that supports and validates their stance.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile Australian Senate votes against cap and trade bill
Yes the 'war on carbon' bill was defeated in the Australian Senate by 42 votes to 30.
All the 5 Green Senators voted against
One other odd fact is that the BBC piece does not mention the greenies voting against the bill. This is a key part of the story. I'm sure it's just a mistake.
Complain about this comment
@boring_username
here is the link over at nature (login required):
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html
perhaps it is time the bbc's environmental blogger (are you listening richard black) finally did an article on this matter - isn't Phil Jones refusal to hand over data we have paid for newsworthy?
Complain about this comment
#89. The Greenland Norse. [ You know I like history Larry ;-) ]
The Norse colonies weren't overwhelmed by glaciers.
The evidence from archaeology (There's been a lot of archaeological research into the Greenland Norse) suggests that the climate became cooler and crucially, DRYER; this resulted in poorer quality grassland; this resulted in reduced milk yields and thinned the cattle population to below levels necessary to maintain population levels.
The Norse began to face year on year hunger. Despite their closeness to the sea, the Greenland Norse, for unknown reasons, apparently didn't fish.
The puzzle that faced archaeologists was why the Greenland Norse became extinct when another large human population in Greenland at the same time [see below] appeared unaffected?
NB: The Icelandic Norse - Reykjavik is also on exactly the same latitude as the Western settlement - also survived to this day.
The mystery was why the Greenland Norse didn't adapt in order to survive. All the evidence suggests they stuck rigidly to a farming model that was failing.
------------------------------------------------
In 985 Norse settlers arrived in Greenland from Iceland, led by Erik the Red. They establish two settlements in the south of the Island. The Western Settlement on the SW coast and the Eastern Settlement, around a large bay on the southern tip.
At its peak the Norse population is thought to have been as high as 9,000 people. They brought with them the type of cattle-based farming practised in the Norwegian fjords. During the long winters they ceased all farming activity and sat inside their homesteads living off food stores gathered in the summer months.
If Eric the Red discovered Greenland today he would find it suitable for settlement. The Greenland meteorological office reports Greenland’s average temperature has increased from 0.63 degrees C to 1.93 degrees C (+1.3 degrees C) in the last 30 years and that the growing season has extended by two weeks. The Wall Street Journal also reported a similar 2.7 degrees F degrees rise in temperatures over the past 30 years.
Cattle have been reintroduced to Greenland in recent years as well a summer vegetables not seen since Viking days. The Norse could easily settle in Greenland today.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-434356,00.html
An Inuit Thule culture also began to populate Greenland (from 900 AD onwards) and is though to have outnumbered the Norse. They survived the changes in climate without too many problems.
Another Inuit culture, The Dorset people had also arrived in the 8th-9th centuries AD. This Dorset group settled primarily in North and Northeast Greenland.
http://www.greenland.com/content/english/tourist/culture/the_history_of_greenland/migration_to_greenland
http://www.randburg.com/gr/general/general_4.html
------------------------------------------------
Greenland had its lowest temperatures in the 14th century, three hundred years before England and Western Europe would have its coldest period. (In Britain, at least, the 1690’s can be claimed to have been the coldest decade of the past millennium.)
In 1350 the Norse Western Settlement In Greenland suddenly became extinct. The Eastern Settlement struggled on for another 75-100 years.
It's now accepted by archaeologists that the cause of the Norse collapse was a refusal to adopt Thule (Inuit) ways and methods of hunting.
The Norse were highly Christianised by the time of their collapse (the last entry in the Greenland Norse church records for that time was of a marriage and witch burning!) and saw the Inuit as pagans with nothing to offer.
The Norse couldn't countenance adapting to Inuit methods and lifestyles; instead the Norse prayed for a return to prosperous times and appear to have starved in their farms.
There is also evidence that in the final stages there was conflict between the Norse and Thule; possibly some Norse were raiding Thule camps for food.
The Greenland Norse had lost their last ocean going vessel - of the type that carried the original settlers - as early as the 11th century. (McGovern. 1980) Greenland lacked timber for shipbuilding. From then onwards the Norse couldn’t evacuate themselves. (The Norse abandoned their Newfoundland settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in around 1010 AD; after that they ceased roaming the seas.)
According to one of the key archaeologists on the Greenland Norse (Thomas McGovern): 'it would be wrong to explain the collapse of the more northerly of the two Norse settlements - the so-called 'Western Settlement' -solely in terms of a deteriorating climate, or even of climate in association with other external pressures.
The Norse could have survived by shifting the economic balance of their society away from stock raising towards greater exploitation of seals and other marine resources, and by adopting the use of elements of Inuit (Eskimo) culture and technology (skin boats, clothing, etc.) in order to facilitate the shift.
But instead of pioneering these adaptive strategies, the evidence suggests that the political and religious elite in Greenland persisted in maintaining existing and increasingly inappropriate economic and cultural patterns.
Their failure as flexible managers of the community's scanty resources was the ultimate cause of the extinction of the Norse colonies.'
McGovern, T. H. (1981). The Economics of Extinction in Norse Greenland: in Climate and History, pp. 404-433.Eds: Wrigley, T. M. L., Ingram, M. J., and Farmer. Cambridge University Press.
See also: The Greenland Viking Mystery
http://web.missouri.edu/~glaserr/bruice3e/chapter10/A0761.html
And was the Little Ice Age a period of uniform cold and misery?
"What dreadful hot weather we have! It keeps me in a continual state of inelegance." Jane Austen, Letters, 18th Sept. 1796.
We tend to carry a simplified, romanticised picture (often myths) of history in our minds. Look closer and you'll find things are much more complex.
Complain about this comment
@sheftim
#94
The Norse colonies weren't overwhelmed by glaciers.
The evidence from archaeology (There's been a lot of archaeological research into the Greenland Norse) suggests that the climate became cooler and crucially, DRYER;
Sorry to seem pedantic, tim, but it's still evidence of natural climate change, of which there is already ample evidence to support a warmer world
Complain about this comment
@Jack_Hughes_NZ
#92
Australians couldn't give a xxxx about climate change lol
(i hope that isn't construed as bad language or advertising!)
Complain about this comment
Roger Pielke Snr:
1,264 = the number of news stories covering Michael Mann and colleagues' new paper claiming that Atlantic hurricanes are at a 1,00o-year high.
1 = the number of news stories covering Chris Landsea and colleagues' new paper claiming that there is no trend in Atlantic hurricanes over a century.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/1264-to-1.html
Complain about this comment
Hi mango, #95.
No-one has ever denied that natural changes to climate occur; after all it was (and remains) those that study climate and our planet's history that first identified these.
In deep-time, over long periods rising and falling CO2 levels (largely from volcanism, but also from other parts of the carbon cycle) also contributed natural changes to climate.
Changes in the positions of the continents, due to tectonic plates, and consequent changes to ocean heat circulation; the formation of mountains and the consequent effect on air streams, Milankovitch (astronomical) cycles and a number of other factors all contributed to changes in climate (and atmosphere, environment, life etc) since earth's formation.
Shorter term climate variability comes from changes to ocean states and ocean/atmosphere interactions (El Nino/La Nina are the best known of these), significant volcanic eruptions e.g. Tambora in 1815 caused the subsequent year without summer in Europe in 1816 and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora#1815_eruption
Do solar cycles affect earth's climate? The answer appears to be yes, but not in the way (or to the extent) that most people expect.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113358.htm
While it is true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who believe that current warming is purely natural - or even mostly natural - have two challenges.
First, you need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle.
If such a mechanism (forcing) isn't there, then there will be no change in the global energy balance.
The balance certainly began to change in the latter part of the 20th century, so if a natural cause you need to identify and firmly evidence this mechanism.
Second, you need to come up with an explanation why an increase in the second most important greenhouse gas would not or does not affect global temperature?
The heat retaining properties of GHGs have been firmly established ever since the pioneering work of John Tyndal in the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work
Joseph Fourier in 1824 first identified the Greenhouse Effect and described earth's energy balance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_greenhouse_effect
The recent increase in GHGs has been substantial and past evidence e.g the Paleocene Eocene Thermal maximum (See comment #13 above) strongly suggests that a similar rise would cause the same to happen again; after all the physics of GHGs hasn't changed.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), has risen by 31% since 1750 and is now at the highest concentration seen in the last 420,000 years (and likely higher than any concentration seen for the last 20 million years).
Other greenhouse gases that have increased since 1750 are methane (up by 151%), nitrous oxide (up by 17%), halocarbons (rising rapidly since 1950 but slowing or decreasing in recent years because of international agreements to protect the ozone layer), and tropospheric ozone (up by 36%) Source NOAA.
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_observing.html
So, do I think that the same natural causes that were at work during the Medieval warming are at work now? No, I don't.
I don't see the same ocean conditions now that appear to have existed then. The eastern Pacific entered into a predominantly La Nina state for several centuries, causing severe droughts over much of the USA prior to and during the MWP. The evidence suggests that El Ninos became very rare indeed. Over the 20th century El Ninos predominated, there were fewer La Ninas.
The North Atlantic Index (an oscillating pattern of opposing High and Low pressure systems (Icelandic Low & Azores High), linked to warm SSTs in the western tropical Atlantic), appear to have entered into a predominantly 'high' state for a similar period. (There was an abrupt shift from both these states in the fourteenth century.)
For more on this read the first half of this page: http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/
The North Atlantic Index of course continued to oscillate since then - on time-scales from a year to several years - but isn't sufficient to explain the recent warming; after all the North Atlantic Index (and AMO) also continued oscillating throughout the so-called Little Ice Age.
So no, I don't believe that we're in simple repeat of the Medieval warming due to the same causes.
Complain about this comment
#97. I don't see the two papers contradicting each other.
Landsea is looking at whether there has been an actual, or simply a reported, rise in tropical storms over the 20th century, not at whether there has been a rise over the past ten centuries. (He has published similar papers before; that might be one reason this one gets little attention; it's old news.)
The real significance (when taken with Mann's) is that El Ninos tend to suppress tropical storm formation in the tropical Atlantic, whilst tropical storm numbers tend to increase during La Nina years.
I would expect to have seen a rise in the actual numbers is periods when La Ninas were more frequent than El Ninos; that wasn't the case during the last century. (I know there has been a past discussion as to whether warmer SSTs cause more intense tropical storms; I've never thought there would be that a simple correlation myself; there's the African dust issue to consider for example.)
The significance of Mann's paper is that it is yet another piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that the eastern Pacific entered into a predominantly la Nina state prior to and during the so-called Medieval Warm Period; a period of prolonged, severe droughts across the Americas.
I've started writing up accounts (from published research) of both the American Medieval droughts and tropical ocean variability conditions on a site here.
It's a work in progress (and I have more to write up when I get time) but the first half of this page should give an overview.
http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/
If anything, BOTH Landseas and Mann's papers could be seen as supporting the hypothesis that ocean variability conditions were not the same during the 20th century as during the MWP.
Therefore, we are not in a repeat of the conditions that caused the warming of the MWP.
Complain about this comment
To SheffTim #99
Is this the same Mann that tried to smooth out the MWP from existance with the Hockey Stick?
If so, IMO it's not even worth the discussion.
Now he's using it to support his current work!!!!!!!!
From BishopHill:
1,264 = the number of news stories covering Michael Mann and colleagues' new paper claiming that Atlantic hurricanes are at a 1,00o-year high.
1 = the number of news stories covering Chris Landsea and colleagues' new paper claiming that there is no trend in Atlantic hurricanes over a century.
Now, my question. In all honesty, what does this tell you?
Complain about this comment
Tim Jenvey:
It is an extraordinary comparison isn't it? You have to wonder why the media are so obsessed with Mann's results. After the Hockey Stick was shown to have biased methodology and unsuitable proxies, you would have thought a bit of caution was in order, but everyone seems to just keep repeating everything he says. How many other scientists are there? What is wrong with their findings. Why the favoured treatment for this one scientist? Why are his results so much more newsworthy than the others?
If anyone from the Blog of Bloom writing team is reading (are you all on hols?) it would be nice to have your input here.
Complain about this comment
I think Pielke may not realise that there's a film director also called "Michael Mann" (Pielke's news search criteria.)
The other Michael Mann directed Heat, Last of the Mohicans etc - and has a new movie out [Public Enemies].
If you scroll down Pielke's list of results (click the link on his blog) and on the 1st page you quickly find ones such as - "Public Enemies is a rare marriage of a classy director Michael Mann and amazing talent Johnny Depp. For Depp is the kind of actor who turns mockery as in ..."
Run a Google News search for "Chris Landsea" +hurricanes and look at the top story, it has 1,419 related articles (Google News groups related stories together).
I also suspect that many articles that refer to one also refer to the other (e.g. below). So not quite the bias Pielke suspects.
The NY times appears to agree that the two papers compliment the others conclusion.
'2 Studies Challenge Notion of Rise in Atlantic Storms'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/science/earth/13atlantic.html
Landsea's paper is very similar to others he's published in the past e.g:
'Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900'.
Eos, (American Geophysical Union) May 2007.
'Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?'
Science, July 2006.
[Both the above papers are available online as PDFs.]
So Landsea's new paper isn't exactly 'new information', its just reinforcing his previous case.
In case the hurricane debate is new to you the link below will provide an overview.
There has been a separate debate over the past few years, amongst those that study hurricanes, as to whether observed warmer SSTs is leading to more powerful, and more frequent, hurricanes?
http://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp
As I said above I've never seen a direct correlation between: warmer waters = more powerful hurricanes. Given the study of aerosols (dust) is ongoing I've tended to agree with Landsea, but I'm sure the hurricane debate will continue to rumble on.
Complain about this comment
@SheffTim
#98
While it is true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who believe that current warming is purely natural - or even mostly natural - have two challenges.
First, you need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle......
Second, you need to come up with an explanation why an increase in the second most important greenhouse gas would not or does not affect global temperature?.....
I completely disagree. Those of us who believe the current warming is natural or mostly natural do not have to prove any kind of alternative reason (if there is a single reason), we only have to show that AGW is false by an observation or a physical experiment.
We all know about the laboratory experiment showing CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has the ability to raise the temperature because of it's properties, but the scale at which CO2 is able to do this is logarithmic and each additional molecule of CO2 beyond the first 20ppmv adds very little to global warming. This is also well known. The argument is about sensitivity and feedback
Shaviv amongst others has demonstrated that sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC tell us, which begs the question why did the IPCC AR4 ignore available work showing sensitivity was much lower, but chose to include work stating sensitivity was high - hopefully they will correct this error when the next report is produced.
The recent increase in GHGs has been substantial and past evidence e.g the Paleocene Eocene Thermal maximum (See comment #13 above) strongly suggests that a similar rise would cause the same to happen again; after all the physics of GHGs hasn't changed.
Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that shows temperature rise precedes the rise in CO2?
My understanding, from several sources and i believe even the alarmists concede this point, is there is an 800 year lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise. Whilst the alarmists will tell us CO2 then amplifies the rise in temperature, if this is the case, why didn't we have runaway global warming in the past when the earth warmed and 800 years later CO2 levels rose? Something more important than CO2 must have stopped any runaway warming.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), has risen by 31% since 1750 and is now at the highest concentration seen in the last 420,000 years (and likely higher than any concentration seen for the last 20 million years).
Not according to Beck, who has studied the original CO2 measurements for the last 180 years. His work (ridiculed by the alarmists, but not proven to be wrong) shows CO2 levels have varied greatly over the last 180 years and there is no normal level of CO2 that we should be using as a baseline. Wagner argued that CO2 levels 7-10K years ago were higher than 300ppmv, Greenland ice cores report higher levels of CO2 than Antarctic ice sores (although Smith thinks this is due to dust), but we continue to rely on the measurements of a single source.
The thing i really don't understand about those that believe in AGW, is how they can believe that a single molecule (saturated in it's absorption bands) can overcome the combined forces of nature both internal to the earth and external to the earth.
Complain about this comment
@Tim (#94)
I too enjoy history. The point in my post was not that the Viking settlements were "overrun" by glaciers. The point is that the settlements were recently uncovered by melting glaciers.
To me this implies that when the settlements were established, the glaciers were not there. Also, I would tend to argue that in order for the glaciers to expand and cover the settlement, one would expect the climate to have become cooler and wetter (as opposed to more arid). Precipitation is required for the formation and expansion of glaciers. I realize that it wasn't glaciers bearing down upon the Vikings, but a change in climate (cooler conditions) which forced the abandonment of settlements. There were two major climate factors (setting aside the fact that the Vikings did not adopt the intuit culture and techniques) - one: decreased agricultural output due to cooling conditions, i.e. crop failures, and two: increase in sea ice, making access much more limited, dangerous and difficult.
So, when I hear that the glaciers in Greenland are receeding at an "unprecidented rate" and the glaciers have receeded more than at anytime in the last 420,000 years (or whatever study you wish to site) - I become "alarmed".
There are also studies today that show while more glaciers are receeding than expanding along Greenland's coast (50% vs 33% with the other 17% changing very little either way), there is increased precipitation in inland areas - and that we really don't know whether the "total ice volume" of Greenland is shrinking or growing.
Another example - "the poster child formerly known as The snows of Kilimanjaro" (for Mango TPCFKATSOK). Ten years ago, many pointed to the receeding glaciers on Kilimanjaro as a "smoking gun" for AGW. Studies showed that the climate changed and became much more arid - which had two major impacts: first, with decreased precipitation to replace natural melting at lower altitudes (as it is rarely above freezing at 19,000 ft) the glaciers were not replenished. Second, the more arid conditions caused sublimation to occur on the mountain top. This is also evidenced by the volume of meltwater reaching its way down the mountain as compared with glacial volume loss at the top. I would argue that the climate change on Kilamanjaro was probably a long time ago - and positive feedbacks have finally taken hold in the last couple of hundred years and accelerated ice loss on the mountain.
Be honest Tim, there is so much that we really don't know - and also that any story which is Pro-AGW is going to get 100X the attention of any story which is Anti-AGW or along the lines of "well, we observed this and it might be from that, but some also think it could be the other - and we really don't know".
Is that fair to say?
Cheers Mate.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Tim, @Mango,
I would argue that in looking at the Vostok Ice Cores, one would find that CO2 lags temperature - and at the point where CO2 reaches its highest point, the earth's climate plunges into an ice age. Looking at this "casual relationship" (the reality is that the correlation of rising CO2 levels and temperature since 1850 is also a "casual relationship"), one could argue that at some point, feedback from CO2 forcing becomes highly negative. If you look at my previous post describing the tensor field and mathematics associated with "climate change modeling" - a realistic model, I think - it would point to the relationship between CO2 and temperature to be much more complex than current science and most AGW supporters believe. The relationship is so interdependent upon so many factors.
My belief is that under certain conditions, CO2 forcing causes increased temperatures, and under other conditions, feedback from CO2 forcing causes decreasing temperatures. While under other conditions - has little effect.
The relationship between CO2 concentrations increasing with temperatures since 1850 is a casual one. Another casual relationship which seems to be mostly ignored is the dramatic changes in land use which has occured during the same time period. Which has had more effect? We don't really know. Are there other forcings which have had greater effects - we know there are other forcings, but really don't know the effects. All we have are a lot of theories with a lot of loose ends, nothing more.
IMHO, we have barely scratch the surface of understanding Earth's Climate System. While looking at the PETM and other changes in the geologic past, we have only proxies - which have uncertainties. Let us also not forget that the distribution of land masses and ocean currents were very different at that time (and throughout geologic history). Many other factors were different as well. Take the PETM (one of your favorite subjects Tim), here is a theory - a relatively small asteroid striking the earth in the "wrong" spot could have released massive amounts of methane hydrates from the sea floor. Couple this with the volcanic activity at the time and many other factors we don't understand or aren't aware of, and, while it is interesting to study - it may or may not tell us much about what the future holds with regards to climate change.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Regarding Hurricanes - I live in Texas, also lived in Florida (twice) and Puerto Rico. I have been facinated by hurricanes my entire life.
From what I have read and studied, warmer waters do tend to "fuel" hurricanes - but other conditions must also be present. Outflow from the center is very important to maintain the extremely low barametric pressures required for the inflow windspeed to become extreme - without this outflow, the hurricane will weaken and die regardless of water temperature. Even with outflow, if the storm moves over cooler waters, it will also weaken.
I subscribe to the theory that hurricanes generally run in a 40 year cycle (as theorized) and that this natural cycle has been affected little by man. As a youth, I can recall the Atlantic coast of Florida - much of which was empty in terms of houses, hotels and condos. Same for the Texas coast. Now, there is hardly an empty lot on the water anywhere. I believe this coupled with more stringent building codes has been the major factor in increases of losses due to hurricanes.
I hate when people point to Katrina and New Orleans as an example of "worstening storms" due to "global warming". The truth is that Katrina lost strength rapidly as it approached landfall, it was only a cat 3 storm when it hit New Orleans.
New Orleans was built upon a peat bog - much of the city, which was once 12 ft above sea level is now 12 ft below sea level because the peat dried out. New Orleans is surrounded by levies and dikes to protect it. If you take I-10 (big freeway) along Lake Pontchatrain (sp?), one one side you have the lake (which is AT sea level), on the other, it goes down 15 ft behind the levy.
New Orleans was, and continues to be, a disaster waiting to happen. Another storm will come, and the city will have sunk even more - the miles and miles of levies will not protect the city. It will probably be even worse.
Here, when you build on the beach, you must expect that every 20 years or so, you will have to rebuild - at least along the Gulf coast as well as the Southern Atlantic states. The land is typically flat and low, allowing the surges from storms to reach miles inland - completely destroying everything in its path - much like a tsunami.
BTW - I was born in a hurricane - Myrtle Beach AFB, Hurricane Cleo.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
I enjoyed reading your site on the MWP and American droughts. You might also look at some of the American Indian Tribes which died out during the 8-12th centuries - theoretically due to persistant drought conditions in the US Southwest.
Also note, in my visits to Tulum (I believe i have mentioned this) - many have thought that the water supplies became contaminated with a bacteria which dis-allowed the use of much of the water - which led to further decline and abandonment.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #106
Sacramento is another diaster waiting to happen. As you drive along I-80 out of West Sacremanto you can see the same as you describe on I-10. We had a lot of rain in 2006 when levies were at straining point and some broke. With El Nino back in the Pacific we are likely to get a lot of rain this winter. Tie that in with one of the high tides and a storm and that will be the end of West Sacramento.
And no doubt AGW will be to blame.
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry, I agree with pretty much everything you say in your hurricane posts.
I've read there appears to be both a 30/40 yr cycle (NAO) and a longer 70 yr one (AMO). (I wouldn't be surprised if the PDO played a role too.)
You may be interested in this:
'We now understand that the AMO (70 yr cycle) is a natural cycle in the speed of the THC (Knight et al., 2005) driven by years of cool winds off Canada cooling the waters in the North Atlantic, causing them to sink faster, driving the ocean conveyor faster. This faster conveyor then drives warmer waters into the North Atlantic, leaving cooler waters in the South Atlantic.
These conditions drive easterly waves off of Africa, provide warmer SSTs in the North Atlantic, and lessen vertical wind-shear between the upper- and lower-troposphere, all of which are conditions favourable for tropical cyclone formation.'
S. Goldberg, et al. The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and implications, Science, 2001.
Generally it takes warm surface water to fuel a hurricane, but it takes deeper warm water to energize it up to full maturity. Most hurricanes struggle to strengthen significantly because cooler waters often lies close under the warm surface waters.
If storm causes turbulence that mixes the deeper cool waters into the surface waters the hurricane finds to hard to sustain itself and collapses.
It's actually surprising that the numbers of hurricanes are as high as they are; they need a combination of factors to fuel their development to maturity.
El Nino/La Nina also affects hurricane formation in the S. Atlantic as the trade-winds move them eastwards.
El Nino suppresses them by increasing high altitude east to west air-streams that can shear off the tops of hurricanes forming there.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita both struck lucky by passing over a current of deep warm water in the Gulf of Mexico. It renewed their energy when they should have been fading away. Had the steering winds shifted only slightly, those storms might have passed over surface waters lacking such warm water and New Orleans might have sustained less damage or been missed completely.
I've made the same points myself in blog debates that you made - Katrina was only Cat 3 when it struck and New Orleans was an accident waiting to happen. (Still is along with some other coastal cities. No idea why folk still move to the Gulf coast, I wouldn't.)
I call in on a few severe weather blogs; learn a lot from them too. Just wish more attention was paid to the Indian Ocean & western Pacific; most attention is paid to the tropical Atlantic.
I am working on northern America at the present. I'm just finished reading about [and note-making] the history of the different of Native American tribes.
Northern America is more difficult than Mesoamerica because there's fewer built towns and therefore been less for archaeologist to recover and analyse: Cahokia, Chaco Canyon, the Anasazi, Aztec and a few others. There's no written histories either from pre-Columbian days.
But you have had a lot of industrious archaeologists in the USA and the USGS have done thorough surveys of most of the USA (more than just the geology) so there's a fair bit of information available.
I may get it completed by the end of this year - particularly if I spend less time on blogs such as this :-)
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
There is a good deal of study which has been done on the Indian ocean - in particular with regards to the monsoon seasons. Unfortunately, most of this work is 20+ years ago. The western pacific also gets a fair amount of study - but mostly by the military. We did have the big typhoon in Tawain this week - some of the photos and video were just incredible. Today we saw on the news a couple of villages completely wiped from existance.
Why people are so arrogant to believe they can stand before the forces of nature such as this boggles my mind.
I was here for Rita (came ashore about 50 miles from me) and Ike. I was actually on the last plane from Atlanta which landed in Houston before Rita. The other fortunate thing about Rita was that the storm began its turn toward the north and then east earlier than expected - spareing the most highly populated and vulnerable areas to a great extent. The eye of Ike passed within 10 miles of my home. At one point, the rain was coming so hard, with 130 mph winds - it blew out the liner around the back door and water was just pouring in. It was exciting for several hours.
There is still much that is poorly understood, but forecasting strength and probable path have become much better in the last decade. Although, it is still a "crap shoot" - as 50 miles can make a huge difference in terms of damage and loss of life.
Regarding the climate changes of North America (particularly, the US Southwest), I would be happy to assist in your compilation of research. If you are interested. I have the time and interest at the moment. You can find my contact info on cif - lkealey.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry, Thanks for the offer. I think I've got enough material on the Medieval droughts and the native peoples; the problem comes in summarising it for a webpage, which is really about the writing - and getting down to it! My library service is excellent at obtaining books for me and I try and source photos from the Creative Commons pool on Flickr.
But any articles, papers or pics on any aspect of the droughts or the Native American cultures of that time are always welcomed. I can be mailed on: [Personal details removed by Moderator]
I like to link environmental change to any impacts on human societies, hence the interest in Pre Columbian societies.
The main adaptive strategy of the peoples was migration - climate during the first (continuing into the second) Millennium may be one reason why 'civilisation' (towns supported by agriculture) never developed in N. America to the extent they did in Mexico and S. America; though there were significant trade links between the SW and SE USA and Mesoamerica; the big civilisations of in Central Mexico, and even the Maya, were known to some of the N. American societies.
Turquoise in particular was a prized item in Mesoamerica, coming from Arizona, New Mexico, and California.
http://www.archaeology.org/0501/abstracts/turquoise.html
It was interesting reading up on the pre Columbian peoples. The Apaches, for example, were relative latecomers to the SW; originating in peoples (Athabaskan) from northern Canada.
http://www.desertusa.com/ind1/du_peo_apache.html
A good paper and some sample online articles on the droughts:
North American Drought: Reconstructions, Causes and Consequences. E. Cook et al. Earth Science Reviews. 2007.
It's online as a PDF if you Google the title, but is a big download: 5 MB and 114 pages. Some interesting maps from page 101 onwards.
The Characteristics and Likely Causes of the Medieval Megadroughts in North America
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/medieval.shtml
Severe Ancient Droughts
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-california.html?pagewanted=all
UNL Scientists Link Wind Shift, Medieval Mega-Drought in Sandhills
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_182fff48-a434-5e0b-b369-2f15540d1ce1.html
PS "It was exciting for several hours." Understatement I bet.
You may already know of it, but the Weather Underground site is good on many aspects of meteorology - particularly for the USA.
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/
Complain about this comment
@Tim,
I hope that you can determine what the cause for "moderation" of your last post was and re-post - I am very interested in reading it.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Oops, put an email address in the last post. Hopefully the Mods will remove it (hint) and put the rest in. If not I'll try again tomorrow.
Is CIF Facebook?
Complain about this comment
@SheffTim
CIF is "Comment Is Free" on the Guardian website. Look forward to you post tomorrow.
Cheers
lkealey
Complain about this comment
Hi Larry,
I suspect that some modding is automated, looking for URLs that beak house rules - so it's possible a human will look at my post (#111) on Monday. So I'll be brief in case it does go in.
The below, it may interest you. The E. Cook paper is pretty comprehensive, below that are some online articles.
North American Drought: Reconstructions, Causes and Consequences. E. Cook et al. Earth Science Reviews. 2007.
If you Google the title it's available online as a PDF, but is a big (5MB, 114 pages) download.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517152428.htm
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/medieval.shtml
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,595097448,00.html
I think I have enough material, summarising it will take time, but that's the writing part. Getting to grips with the (many) pre Columbian native American societies has been a steep learning curve, as its all new to me and there's not that many books published on them here in the UK - but I think I can do an overview. But I'm always open to suggestions as to papers, articles, books etc or photos.
There's an email address at the bottom of this page.
http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/about-this-site
For meteorology and hurricane watching I find these two sites useful.
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/
http://www.liveweatherblogs.com/prometweatherblogs/12/2/2199/Tropical-Trouble-Closer-To-Home-Tonite...TS-ANA,-TS-BILL....
If I find time I'll have a look around cif.
Cheers
Complain about this comment
My post #111 has been allowed off the naughty step.
Larry mentioned Tulum in his post #107.
Tulum is very close to some large, deep cenotes e.g. Dos Ojos, and along with Coba, Mayapan, and Chichen Itza, also in the northern Maya lowlands, appears to have made it through the Classic collapse drought period, but with reduced populations and activity; all it seems due to the deep cenotes in this area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos_Ojos
The waters would have provided drinking water, but it would have been impossible to porter enough to irrigate crops as rains did.
Archaeologists estimate that in the southern Maya lowlands that by 1000 AD the population was 20% of what it had been in 700-800 AD. That's a massive drop in population; there's no evidence of migration.
If you have time to read a detailed book on the subject I recommend highly R. B. Gill's book 'The Great Mayan Droughts. Water, Life, and Death', University of New Mexico Press. 2000.
There was another major drought in the early 1450's when Mayapan, Chichen-Itza, Uxmal and Coba were abandoned, but Spanish accounts report that Tulum was still (at least partly) inhabited when Juan de Grijalva's expedition reached the Yucatan coast in 1518.
I'm sure that contaminated water would have played a part in the Maya collapse; without rains to wash away human waste standing water can become stagnant and contaminated, leading to intestinal infections (Typhoid fever, cholera, poliomyelitis, diarrhoea etc.) and parasitic infections (Malaria, Yellow Fever etc.).
The Maya were potentially vulnerable, their agriculture was probably stretched to its maximum potential; the Maya may have over-relied on maize for food, deforestation and soil impoverishment may have played a part; some cites were at war; some were more ably led that others and so on.
The circumstances of each individual city's abandonment would have been unique to it. But the evidence strongly suggests that drought was the catalyst, and applied its own unique stresses on societies and cruelly exposed any deficiencies.
A large Maya city such as such as Tikal had reservoirs that could hold 18 months supply of water; but the three severest drought episodes were each between 3-9 years duration. In the drought centred on 810 AD the city of Tikal lost around 90% of its population.
http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/drought-and-the-collapse-of-mayan-civilisation
Complain about this comment
Just getting the BBQ ready for tonite and I spotted this BBC scare story:
Methane seeps from Arctic sea bed
Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea bed.
Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change.
Reading down the piece it all seems plausible. Then there is a picture showing the methane bubbling out of the sea into the atmosphere. But the text disagrees:
The team found that most of the methane is being dissolved into the seawater and did not detect evidence of the gas breaking the surface of the ocean and getting into the atmosphere.
I'll happily take bets that they would have made a huge effort to find this 'smoking gun'. But they didn't.
Then we get this little gem:
Most of the methane reacts with the oxygen in the water to form carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas. In sea water, this forms carbonic acid which adds to ocean acidification, with consequent problems for biodiversity.
So let's get this straight.
The methane is a horrid greenhouse gas.
It turns to carbon dioxide which is another horrid greenhouse gas.
This then forms carbonic acid which is a horrid bio problem.
The problem is that it cannot be all 3 at the same time.
When it starts being CO2 it stops being methane. And when it starts being carbonic acid it stops being CO2.
We end with
The team is planning another expedition next year to observe the behaviour of the methane plumes over time. They are also engaged in ongoing research into the amount of methane hydrate under this area of the ocean floor.
In the old days we would form a hypothesis then design experiments that could disprove the hypothesis. Not just another sea cruise to look for the bubbles again.
Why not try and find where it does go if none of it breaks the surface ?
I think there is a lot riding on this hypothesis - the whole AGW concept needs these positive feedbacks and they haven't found any real ones yet.
Complain about this comment
#117: ‘Why not try and find where it does go if none of it breaks the surface?’
Do you think that ocean chemistry hasn’t been studied before?
Methane can leave the seabed in three possible forms: in dissolution (dissolved into the water), as gas bubbles and as a hydrate.
Bubbles of methane are typically only able to rise a few hundred meters before they dissolve into the water; so only if the methane is released from a shallow enough bed in the ocean does it have a good chance of escaping into the atmosphere.
Dissolved methane is chemically unstable in the oxygenated water column of the ocean, but it has a lifetime there of decades. (It also contributes to making the seas more acidic, see below.)
Hydrates float in water just as ordinary ice floats in water. If freed from the seabed hydrates would carry methane to the atmosphere much more efficiently than bubbles.
(Below certain temperatures and pressures in deep waters methane combines with H2O to form a hydrate.)
Methane dissolved in seawater can be metabolised by bacteria e.g. Methanotrophs, to form CO2.
CO2 and water, H2O, combine to form carbonic acid, H2CO3.
Like all acids, this releases hydrogen ions into solution, leaving both bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions in the water. One result is the increase in hydrogen ion concentrations, which results in making the seas more acidic.
Methanotrophs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph
NB Methanotrophs are bacteria that consume methane. Methanogens are bacteria that produce methane.
Overviews of ocean acidification.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7933589.stm
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/acidoceans.asp
‘Ocean Acidification Due To Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide’
Royal Society. 2005. PDF download if you Google the title.
Acidic 'champagne sea' nothing to celebrate for corals
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14085-acidic-champagne-sea-nothing-to-celebrate-for-corals.html
Related: Increased Ocean Acidification In Alaska Waters. 14/08/09
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813163158.htm
NB: These plumes of methane gas come from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen current, which is located north of Norway. The current has warmed by 1 degrees C over the last three decades and this warming is likely to have increased the release of methane from the seabed.
If the quantity of methane released accelerates some could make it all the way to the surface. More worryingly is the fact that there are considerable quantities of methane hydrates under the seabed.
There is a limit to the amount of CO2 that water can hold in solution, if the oceans becomes saturated (they are major sinks) then they would be unable to absorb additional CO2 from the atmosphere. That is a feedback.
Related: Southern Ocean Less Effective at Absorbing Carbon Dioxide Emitted by Human Activity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090216092937.htm
Related: Ozone hole has Unforeseen Effect on Ocean Carbon Sink
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17385-ozone-hole-has-unforeseen-effect-on-ocean-carbon-sink.html
It’s also worth noting that gasses in warm water become less soluble; if the oceans warm then CO2 would be released from the oceans back into the atmosphere.
(This is also the only reason it is recommended that lager is best served cold, as a carbonated drink it keeps its ‘fizz’ longer at lower temperatures. - There, some pub science for you too.)
Complain about this comment
Re: 118 - SheffTim
There is no such thing as ocean acidification in the vast majority of the Earth's water systems. Sea water is naturally alkaline and, even if all the fossil fuels in the world were burned, would remain alkaline (just less so).
The correct, scientific, term is therefore ocean neutralisation - but this doesn't sound as scary as acidification so isn't used all that much in the alarmist sphere!
It is also something that I am not too worried about - Geologists like me generally take longer term views of the world, backed up by looking at what has happened in the past too. Corals have survived temperature fluctuations from ice-ages to hot-houses; CO2 levels far in excess of 1000ppm and sea level rises of many 10s of metres in very short timespans. They are hardy little critters and actually do better in elevated CO2 times as their algal symbionts are able to make more food(anyone who keeps them in aquariums will tell you that to get them growing really well you pump in CO2 to raise the CO2 levels).
Methane clathrates are more interesting though - they do have the ability to rapidly change the planet's climate system (unlike CO2 which doesn't) - more research should, IMHO, go into the potential to control them and mine them for energy.
Complain about this comment
The 'acidification' idea is B-U-S-T-E-D
A quick trip to wikipedia and we read that
"Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104"
Where anything above 7 is alkaline.
So it's misleading to talk of 'acidification' or to use phrases like
'making the seas more acidic'.
I'm sure there is a lot of stuff in the BBC story that is correct. But the diagram disagrees with the words and the carbon being in 3 places at the same time - these mistakes rather undermine the correct bits.
Complain about this comment
#119. I beg to differ.
‘Ocean neutralisation’ is usually used to refer to the process of neutralising carbonic acid, formed from concentrations of CO2, by use of a carbonate material, such as limestone.
It’s a proposed method in some carbon capture techniques.
In other words, the CO2 is neutralised by reaction with CaCO3 in water to form calcium bicarbonate (also called calcium hydrogen carbonate). [ CO2 + CaCO3 + H2O= Ca(HCO3)2 – numbers should be subscript].
------------------------------------------------
#119 & #120. On the use of the term ‘acidification’ more generally:
The pH (power of hydrogen) scale is a scale measuring acidity and alkalinity (or acid and basic).
Neutral is set at 7.0. Seawater pH is limited to the range 7.5 to 8.4.
(Although ocean pH has dropped by slightly less than 0.1 units, as the pH scale is logarithmic* this represents an actual increase of approximately 25%.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Acidification
If you decrease alkalinity you are moving closer to the acidic end of the scale, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming ‘less basic’.
You may dislike it, but ‘acidification’ is the commonly accepted term for: a reduction in pH, any lessening of alkalinity or the water becoming ‘less basic’.
e.g. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_acidification
Billions of microscopic, single-celled animals called Foraminifera form their shells from calcium ions and carbon dioxide in the ocean, their remains are the basis of much of the world's limestone rocks. (The chalk cliffs of Dover in England are 98% pure calcium carbonate, formed in the Cretaceous period from the remains of blooms of marine algae called coccospheres. [The term 'Cretaceous' derives from the Latin for chalk.])
Although insoluble in ordinary water the calcium carbonate mineral - CaCO3 - dissolves in acidic carbonic solutions.
Increasing the acidity (or reducing its alkalinity) of the oceans leads to fewer carbonate ions. By reducing the quantity of these raw materials, it slows the speed at which these creatures produce their calcite shells, making them less healthy, prone to dissolution and predators.
Is this bad news? As these creatures are the bottom (the start) part of the marine food chain then yes, it can be.
------------------------------------------------
#119. CO2 is added to aquariums as ‘food’ for plants; a by-product is it keeps oxygen levels up.
As part of the photosynthesis process, CO2 is consumed (removed from the water) and oxygen is released into the water. This CO2 being consumed (thus reducing overall CO2 levels) also causes the pH to rise.
As salt water tropical aquarium keepers will know, much reef life likes a pH of 8.0 to 8.4.
------------------------------------------------
#119: ‘more research should, IMHO, go into the potential to control them and mine them for energy.’
The energy companies are well ahead of you on this: e.g.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221180908.htm
------------------------------------------------
* The pH scale is logarithmic and as a result each whole pH number below 7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher number. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6.
Complain about this comment
How's the barbecue summer playing out ?
Maybe time for a new thread ?
Complain about this comment
The pesky jet stream is still wavering to and fro over the UK.
http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/FREE/jetstream.asp
It it shifted northwards we'd get the weather the rest of Europe is getting:
http://www.france24.com/en/20090819-heatwave-southern-europe-warnings-fires-dehydration
Hot in Paris - and that's just a hop over the channel should you fancy a weekend break:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/20/paris-plages-heatwave
And ocean temperatures seem to be high worldwide too:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/08/record_warmth_for_global_ocean.html
P'raps Richard and Shanta are basking on beaches somewhere?
Complain about this comment
Hi bloggers and science lovers !
Quick question: if I have a bath full of water at 10 degrees and a cup full of boiling water at 100 degrees then what is the average temperature ?
And I want the answer to two decimal places.
Complain about this comment
Re: 121
Quick chemistry test:
You have a solution with pH of 8.179. You add some acid to the solution to bring the pH to 8.108. The acid you are using only has enough strength and quantity to bring the pH to a lowest of about 7.8.
Would this be described as acidification of the solution, or neutralisation?
In ALL aspects of chemistry this would be neutralisation and is precisely what is happening with the increased levels of carbon dioxide into the oceans. It is therefore ocean neutralisation; the term acidification is used ONLY because it sounds scarier than the process actually is!
Complain about this comment
Re: 121 - Re: 119 (2)
With respect to your point on aquariums this is only valid if the aquarium wasn't kept at a constant higher CO2 elevation level. Yes, the CO2 is being used up but it is also being replaced at the same rate such that there is always an elevated level in order to keep the corals healthier.
The increased CO2 levels and warmth are why calcifying organisms are, in general, doing better nowadays than they were in pre-industrial times:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5874/336
Complain about this comment
Richard / Shanta
Hope you've enjoyed your hols.
Now can you please explain why the BBC is giving free publicity to these 'climate activist' demos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8221283.stm
The piece includes a list of where to go, a map of where to go and a testimonial from a happy protestor.
Reporting facts after the event is one thing, but advertising an event where poeple will probably break the law is not right. It's wrong.
Complain about this comment
@Jack (previous comment)
Hi Jack,
I would disagree with your assessment. Reporting on a planned demonstration would be acceptable in my view. If I lived in London, I would also appreciate the Map - giving me a clear view of places to avoid during the demonstrations.
On another note, it would appear that the Blog of Bloom has gone quiet while I have been out. I guess its those long holidays ya'll in the UK get - hope they (Shanta and Richard) return soon.
cheers all.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Hi there Larry
Just wondering what a free advert for the demo would look like ?
Would it have these kind of things:
* Link to demo website
* Map of where to meet
* Text list of where to meet
* Testimonial from a satisfied protestor
Is there anything missing from this list ?
Complain about this comment
what's happened to richard and shanta? have they been sacked by the bbc for not toeing the party line?
coome back richard and shanta, you're the only sensible bit of the bbc left - i miss you!
kiss kiss
Complain about this comment
@jack
yeah, the thing missing is a link to a bbc "news" item ;)
Complain about this comment
@Jack,
I am not necessarily argueing with you - just pointing out that I personally appreciate knowing when and where there will be a "demonstration" - so that I can avoid the area.
Here is a good question for all the believers in AGW - what is the "carbon footprint" of a demonstration such as this? How about just the carbon footprint of the traffic jam associated with it? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me - how about you?
@Mango, @Jack, @All...
I wonder if the BBC has put the "kabash" on the Blog of Bloom until after Copenhagen - can't have any dissenting viewpoints, can we?
I do hope Richard and Shanta are "allowed" to return soon...
Cheers Mates.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Richard and Shanta have gone to climate camp?
Complain about this comment
Re: 133
Re-education must be taking longer than first thought!
I've even started to go back to Richard Black's blog every now and again - before despairing at the lack of scientific knowledge and thus leaving pretty sharpish!
Complain about this comment
134, I wouldn’t be so sure; do you know that there’s a website that goes with this blog?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/
Complain about this comment
@jayfurneaux
according to the front page of the Blog of Bloom, the last time the lead story "buying an electric car" was updated was "Wednesday 30 April 2008"
it's all very strange
Complain about this comment
Shanta is writing this kind of template stuff at New Scientist:
Polar bears run riot as ice melts
"[bear attacks] more than tripled between 1970 and 2005, from 20 to 90 per year"
Did you leave your calculator behind at the BBC, Shanta ?
Richard is still in with the Headmaster.
Complain about this comment
jack
it can't be the same Shanta Barley
Unless Shanta is a real hypocrite, she wouldn't go from writing stories questioning AGW to stories championing AGW, unless the re-education worked really well on her. It's all very strange. You would think somebody from the BBC would interject here and let us know what happened to them, but i guess nobody from the BBC actually reads this blog or they would have closed it down a long time ago
my turn for the tin foil hoodie
Complain about this comment
this is disappointing
i've done a little popking around and it seems Shanta is the author of Jack's link. She's been playing games i think. Anybody else had the BBC survey pop up over the last few weeks?
it will be interesting to hear her explanation
degree in oceanography and a pretty lady - I would >;-)
(probably get removed for being sexist)
Complain about this comment
It's hard to know what people really think about this stuff.
I mean if you really did think the climate was turning to custard any moment you would want drastic urgent measures. Ban everything now.
Not just meetings and conferences and reports and meetings about reports.
Like finding you have lung cancer and deciding to phase out your smoking over the next 10 years. It doesn't add up.
Complain about this comment
@Mango, @Jack, @All,
Regarding Shanta and the polar bears - what a shame.
It is interesting that she does not mention that the bear population has increased 6 fold during the same time frame (from around 5,000 to over 30,000) - or that the human population in the region has also increased dramatically. Lets us also consider that the bears now enjoy a protected status - reducing their fear of humans. And hey, if you were a bear, would you go to the local dump for an easy free meal - or go and hunt?
Very disappointing, but I fear the Blog of Bloom is dead. I suspect Shanta has "converted" to gain employment while Richard is probably standing to his beliefs and out of a job...
All very disheartening.
Well, it was good while it lasted.
Cheers Mates.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Larry,
Just like the Eskimos - we have not disappeared.
We are on Richard Black's blog now.
Complain about this comment
What a shame the BBC decided to ban this blog. The only bit of reporting on the subject that wasn't clearly eco-fascist so in some ways it is surprising it lasted more than a week.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
143. It may be because only a handful of people paid any attention to this blog. Look through the comments above or in any other thread; the same names appear time after time.
Complain about this comment
i know us brits moan all the time about the weather..... but i think these last 3 'summers' have given us a devine right to do so.
I cant ever remember such a run of glum cold and wet summers. I put it down to climate change
Complain about this comment
@jayfurneaux and others
come over to Richard Blacks blog
it's quite amusing watching the AGW believers think of new ways to avoid answering questions. Some of them even have a "May Day Declaration Message of Hope" website where they try to defend their views on population control, UN reform etc
Complain about this comment
Why did this blog shut down just when it looked like the BBC was actually showing a bit of balance for a change? NO MATTER, the day has finally come where a monotonic one-sided climate change article from the Beeb has finally been replaced with something that actually looks like good old fashioned proper reporting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm
I wonder how long this will last before it is pulled?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS