In The News

[johnholmes]

it is but one of a number of articles regarding the effect of contrails on global climate.

Not all agree on the result in the link from WS.

Obviously there can be no argument about contrails having increased in the last 10 or 50 years. One has only to look at the number of aircraft flying commercially to understand that.

I am looking for the WMO official stance on this but have not found it yet.

[knocker]

The Committee on Climate Change have issued their Renewable Energy Review today.

http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/renewable-energy-review

[jethro]

Meanwhile the drive to use Shale Gas is increasing:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/the-gas-age/

[knocker]

A Risky Proposition: The Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants.

Across the United States, the electric power sector is placing new bets on an old technology—coal-fired power plants. Utilities and other electricity producers are poised to invest heavily in retrofitting their old plants or in building new ones. Each major retrofit or new plant represents an enormous long-term financial commitment to coal power. But as discussed in this report, current economic, technological, and policy trends make such commitments exceedingly risky:

The report;

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/a-risky-proposition_report.pdf

[knocker]

Largest Undersea Cable Ever Could Export Iceland’s Abundant Geothermal Power to the Rest of Europe

Hoping to take advantage of its violent volcanic heritage, Iceland is contemplating building the world’s biggest undersea electric cable, so it can sell geothermal power to other European nations. If it works, it could export enough electricity to power 1.25 million homes. Landsvirkjun, Iceland’s state-owned energy company, is studying the feasibility of building a cable to countries like Great Britain, Norway, the Netherlands and Germany, according to AFP. Depending on the recipient country, the cable would be between 745 and 1,180 miles long. Such a plan would help Iceland’s economy recover both from the worldwide financial collapse and from the impacts of last year’s massive eruption of Eyjafjallajökull.

http://www.searchthenetnow.com/largest-undersea-cable-ever-could-export-icelands-abundant-geothermal-power-to-the-rest-of-europe/2011/03/09/

[Coast]

After months of soul-searching, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has agreed on reforms intended to restore confidence in its integrity and its assessments of climate science.

Created as a United Nations body in 1988 to analyse the latest knowledge about Earth's changing climate, it has worked with thousands of scientists and shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. But its reputation crumbled when its leadership failed to respond effectively to mistakes — including a notorious error about the rate of Himalayan glacier melting — that had slipped into its most recent assessment report

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110516/full/473261a.html

[jethro]

Tough new measures to cut carbon emissions have been announced. The government has legally committed us to cutting our emissions by 50% by 2025.

All seems a tad Draconian to me when you consider that the USA has pledged to cut theirs by 3% and China expect their levels to rise.

We're all going to end up paying through the nose to re-build the energy industry when the energy companies have been reaping the rewards for years whilst not investing in the future. They can't say they were unaware of the issue nor can they say they haven't been given enough notice to plan for the future, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 - 14 years of continuing to reap huge profits with scant regard to investing in future technology. Talk about making hay whilst the Sun shines.

Don't know about anyone else but I resent being expected to pay for this, especially if it's spent on more wretched turbines which are possibly the most inefficient means of generating energy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388168/Green-taxes-Climate-change-targets-cost-household-500-year.html

Also, accusations are flying that ministers are tacitly subsidising nuclear power despite promising that the industry would not receive such support. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that without subsidies, they wouldn't be built. Imagine the business proposal.....we want you to build these power plants, they cost enormous sums of money, are fraught with planning issues, they've never operated at a profit so you won't be rich afterwards, but we want you to build them anyway and we're not going to give you any help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13393732

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-climate-crops-idUSTRE7590I320110610

So folk may argue about the 'cost' of implememting AGW mitigation measures yet last year (and this) our ecconomy has had inflation driven by grain prices inside it.

Inflation will lead to another 'downturn' if not handled and ,worse still, a drop off in food aid around the globe.

This is not a 'future problem' but is occuring right here, right now (ask any East Anglian farmer!!!)

[jethro]

So the very dry weather experienced in some parts of a small island like the UK is because of AGW ? How does that work then?

[pottyprof]

So folk may argue about the 'cost' of implememting AGW mitigation measures yet last year (and this) our ecconomy has had inflation driven by grain prices inside it.

)

And here was me thinking that the price of grain was down to greedy speculators.....

[rob48]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/12/climate-change-curriculum-government-adviser

Good.

Let's end the brainwashing.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do hope P.P and J' are being 'funny' here?

The fact that Russia halted any external grain sales last year had an impact on Food aid globally (I thought J' cared about such?) and the 'futures market' on European crop prices this year (P.P's territory?) is not looking very profitable?

Am I just spouting trash here or am I regurgitating what is occuring in the world?

EDIT: Maybe it is of little consequence to some?

Edited June 12, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

The biggest impact upon food aid globally has been the diversion of food production into bio fuel production.It doesn't take a genius to figure out that with a burgeoning population, we''ll need more food, not less. And yes GW, it is something I care deeply about, you are well aware that I have experience and background in Crisis Aid in Africa.

The headlong rush into bio fuel production as a direct consequence of the AGW hype is, IMO, one of the biggest mistakes of this entire fiasco. Not only are people starving due to either direct food shortages but they are unable to afford the vastly inflated prices due to the reduced food available. And to cap it all, most research shows it is equally CO2 problematic as fossil fuels; there is no saving to the environment but a huge cost to humanity.

The bio fuel production subsidies are an outrage when it has a direct impact upon food production.

When it comes to Russia and their banning of exports, again that was weather, not AGW; this irresponsible linking of seasonal weather events to AGW is nothing more than a straw clutching exercise.

[Gray-Wolf]

The biggest impact upon food aid globally has been the diversion of food production into bio fuel production.It doesn't take a genius to figure out that with a burgeoning population, we''ll need more food, not less.

I fully agree with you on the 'bio fuel' shenanigans J'. It's like the wind power fiasco and , to me, purely intended to sway opinion away from sustainability. To give over prime growing land to fuel 4x4's is madness and ,as you point out, not really reducing/changing the problem.

For those who chose their 4x4 over a starving child , well? what can a person say???

[knocker]

I fully agree with you on the 'bio fuel' shenanigans J'. It's like the wind power fiasco and , to me, purely intended to sway opinion away from sustainability. To give over prime growing land to fuel 4x4's is madness and ,as you point out, not really reducing/changing the problem.

For those who chose their 4x4 over a starving child , well? what can a person say???

This actually impinges on a similar problem that has been going on for years. The growing of feed to supply the intensive farming in western countries in poor African countries rather than food for the starving population. One example would be the intensive pig farming in the Netherlands.

[Gray-Wolf]

or the amount of land given over to raise Beef (for burgers?)

[jethro]

This actually impinges on a similar problem that has been going on for years. The growing of feed to supply the intensive farming in western countries in poor African countries rather than food for the starving population. One example would be the intensive pig farming in the Netherlands.

It's not as simple as that.

If you maintain the status quo of families growing enough food to feed their family, they will be protected from starvation in a good year, but susceptible to disease and starvation in a poor year, dependent upon the weather, particularly the rainy season. They will live a life of "just enough" if they are lucky.

If you open opportunities for them to grow and earn from their production (export) you enable them to feed their family, develop their farm and educate their children. The money they can earn from exporting food stuff is greater than the cost of living and buying food stuff in their own country. This surplus will one day lead to families having greater protection from the vagaries of seasonal weather.

Education has the knock on impact of lowering the number of children born (all studies support this). Disposable income, however small leads to more children going to school and for longer, greater health care, contraception, vaccination and lower infant mortality rates. These two combined factors will eventually lead to a tailing off of the population growth.

Small steps at a time, it won't happen over-night, but poor African countries exporting to the developed world is absolutely vital to their growth and development. All those Kenyan grown vegetables and flowers available in our supermarkets make a big difference to the health and wealth of Kenyan farmers. If we stop buying because of some well intentioned, but misguided belief that we're taking food from their mouths then they will have less to eat. They don't grow green beans for their own consumption, they grow them to earn a decent wage and make their standard of living better.

I fully agree with you on the 'bio fuel' shenanigans J'. It's like the wind power fiasco and , to me, purely intended to sway opinion away from sustainability. To give over prime growing land to fuel 4x4's is madness and ,as you point out, not really reducing/changing the problem.

For those who chose their 4x4 over a starving child , well? what can a person say???

What a ludicrous statement to make.

[feb1991blizzard]

http://www.guardian....ernment-adviser

Good.

Let's end the brainwashing.

I know people think one liners dont add anything to the debate but this one liner is the most sensible post out of the whole 68 pages.

[jethro]

Three new independent studies are in agreement that we are likely to experience a prolonged period of low Solar activity.

The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

[VillagePlank]

or the amount of land given over to raise Beef (for burgers?)

Did you think that there's actually beef in them there burgers?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Having read that Daily Mail article on meeting climate change targets, I think that it may be somewhat biased. For instance, the potential economic costs of trying to meet those targets are not offset against the potential economic costs of continuing to rely upon oil and being hit by continually soaring oil prices- the article just assumes that the costs of maintaining the status quo are zero. Any possible economic costs of AGW are also ignored.

It is clear to me, judging from the comments to Daily Mail articles that relate to AGW and their reputation ratings, that the vast majority of readers believe that AGW is a myth aimed at allowing governments to bring in draconian restrictions, and the Daily Mail will no doubt be interested in spoon-feeding them with some more anti-AGW "food" as it will sell far more copies than providing a balanced summary.

However I'm not convinced that fixed "emissions reductions targets" are the best solution. I think we need to develop a vision of the sustainable society that we want (preferably sustainable reached at as high a level as possible) and then aim to get as close to it as we can. What we don't need is a series of haphazard, poorly-integrated policies that achieve little followed by hammering the public for not shifting behaviour towards more sustainable forms of living when the infrastructure for it still doesn't exist.

[PersianPaladin]

Solar Physicists finally get the message: Landscheidt was right after all

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/solar-physicists-finally-get-the-message-landscheidt-was-right-after-all/

[jethro]

This is quite interesting:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-trends-in-england-from-1659.html

[VillagePlank]

James Hansen's and NASA's ethics under question, here (PDF)

[Methuselah]

James Hansen's and NASA's ethics under question, here (PDF)

Ah, so they've finally given up the silly attacks on UEA have they??

But the principle looks like being the same: if the data cannot be properly vilified then go for the man??

But I'll keep an open mind...