Bishop Hill Bringing politicians to Booker
Mar 24, 2013 Energy: coal Energy: gas Energy: grid Energy: wind Christopher Booker is in fine form this morning, describing in horrific detail the steady progress of the UK's energy system towards disaster. Perhaps mercifully, he does not move on to consider what this will mean for the economy as a whole and for individuals.
[It] is all insane in so many ways that one scarcely knows where to begin, except to point out that, even if our rulers somehow managed to subsidise firms into spending £100 billion on all those wind farms they dream of, they will still need enough new gas-fired power stations to provide back-up for all the times when the wind isn’t blowing, at the very time when the carbon tax will soon make it uneconomical for anyone to build them.
Bishop Hill
Interestingly, a leader in the Telegraph calls for the government to repeal the Climate Change Act. One can't help but be reminded about Winston Churchill's quote about being able to trust Americans to do the right thing once they've tried all the other options.
Nice to hear, but ten years ago would have been better.
Bishop Hill
The Mail is headlining on the excess deaths from the current cold weather.
Freezing Britain's unusually harsh winter could have cost thousands of pensioners their lives.
This month is on track to be the coldest March for 50 years – and as the bitter Arctic conditions caused blackouts and traffic chaos yesterday, experts warned of an 'horrendous' death toll among the elderly.
About 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March compared with the average for the same period over the past five years.
Reader Comments (190)
Don Keiller, when you start predicting global cooling based on a 5 year (!) trend in UK winter temperature, one has to think the game is up for scepticism (JoNova got thoroughly laughed at for something similar recently too). Actually other things point that way too, with the departure of the big Yin James due to his realisation that he has more in common with me than with you lot, followed by your inability to defend your lecture notes against criticism, then MartinA's refusal to discuss tipping points outside his favourite time period. All I need now is a declaration from AM that it has all been a terrible mistake and that he has bought a Prius, and my week will be made.
It would seem that nobody is prepared to defend the much-discredited "climate science". Predictions from invalid climate models are not science. It would seem that "climate science" is quietly admitting defeat, but dare not pronounce it publicly. When will the politicians admit how easily they have been deceived by the Met Office and its BS "science"? When will the Institutions admit they have lied to the public? Even the BBC has gone very quiet on "climate change" recently.
if temps are flat for the next 5yrs /decade.. what future politically for the Met office..
pr plan Z required?
He should be glad they'll be called 'Bryony Blackouts' and not 'Betts Abrupts'.
==============
I share the frustration and anger that many people feel when they witness the madness of our energy policy, the can of worms that constitutes climate science and the intense stupidity of our politicians.
The BBC is totally biased, together with the majority of our newspapers.
What can we do? Perhaps we should organise a serious debate on this. Maybe His Grace could host such a debate on this blog. A weekend would be a good time. Maybe those who feel strongly could provide very brief suggestions to get us going.
Just a thought.
BitBucket - "when you start predicting global cooling based on a 5 year (!)"
Please can you explain the "!" mark?
Thanks for the clarification, Richard.
Nevertheless, the 'adjustments' to the trend certainly give the impression that the rate of increase is both smoother and less variable than the raw data, which was why I asked my questions.
These measurements indicate a rise in annual average atmospheric CO2 concentration from 356.65 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1992 to 381.74 ppmv in 2006, or an increase of about 1.79 ppmv/year, on average. These data may be compared with flask samples taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Monitoring Division (GMD), which show an increase from 356.58 ppmv in 1992 to 381.88 ppmv in 2006, or an average increase of about 1.81 ppmv/year. Another possible comparison is with continuous measurements made through 2004 by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography; these data are also available in TRENDS. The Scripps data show an increase from 356.37 ppmv in 1992 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004, or an increase of 1.75 ppmv/year. The corresponding (1992-2004)average change for these CSIRO flask data is 1.73 ppmv/year. Differences are partly due to different sampling methods; the CSIRO (flask) data are taken at particular times, while the Scripps and NOAA/GMD data represent continuous measurements. There are also differences in statistical treatment of the data (e.g., acceptance criteria, smoothing techniques), as well as instrument differences which are discussed by Masarie et al. (2001).
Richard Betts - "When an argument which is entirely grounded in the peer-reviewed literature is described as "disinformation", that's a sign that the other party (ie: you) is not interested in an objective, sensible conversation."
Surely you can see the irony in your position with the recent "disinformation" papers of Lewandowsky and Marcott so clearly demonstrating that "peer review" is meaningless in terms of quality assurance?
Whilst we sceptics are winning the CAGW arguments hands down, the real elephant in the room remains. This is the creeping implementation of UN Agenda 21, with all the restrictions on private ownership and lifestyle contained therein.
Anyone who thinks this is a conspiracy theory needs to get reading, here's not a bad start
http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/environment/
Also, check your local council website for an 'Agenda 21' officer, or a 'Sustainability' department. Yet more non-jobs at tax payers' expense, doubtless infested with Common Purpose alumni.
Not banned yet, you need an explanation? Isn't that in Scepticism 101?
The core problem with the entire Met office - IPCC approach is that their models from the start were and still are deliberately structured to produce the desired politically correct answer with regard to the climate sensitivity to CO2.This is only possible by simply assuming that CO2 is the main climate driver and then adding on a positive feedback from the increasing humidty to produce the +/- 3 degree value required to keep the grant money coming from the politicians.
This is scientific incompetence of the first order . Naturally as time passed the real world diverged from their imaginary scenarios so that now they are forced into the ludicrous position of saying that while the trend is temporarily against them because of unspecified "natural variability" the cold weather and blizzards are caused by global warming.
For a complete discussion of the coming Global Cooling and the deficiencies of the models and links to the supporting data and papers see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
especially " Its the Sun stupid -the minor significance of CO2." I would refer Betts especially to the recent Trenberth presentation on negative feedback - which Richard would do well to build into his projections.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt.
BB: Dodging a direct question - isn't that in trolling 101?
BB - another direct question for you: Please do you have a source for this claim?:
"with the departure of the big Yin James due to his realisation that he has more in common with me than with you lot"
I don't recall TBYJ stating this in the "thanks for all the fish thread", which I half followed at the time, and a "ctrl-f" just now doesn't bring up "bucket" nor "bb" ("bit" occurs, but not related to you).
Nice to see BB up to his usual tricks.
Please remind me BB. At what point did I say, or imply, in this latest discourse "when you start predicting global cooling based on a 5 year (!) trend in UK winter temperature, one has to think the game is up for scepticism"?
BB is, of course, the person who looks at Tamino's "Open Mind" blog for information on Marcott's peer-reviewed rubbish. And, sadly, believes it.
BB - Gosh, you come across as embittered. Perhaps it's what you call humour.
Obviously there have been bistable effects on timescales of 100's of megayears. Discussion of them is not relevant to discussions of climate change on human timescales. As I said before, in normal writing, one assumes goodwill on the part of the reader and willingness to take account of the context.
Climategate clearly demonstrates why belief in peer reviewed literature in climate science is an act of faith. Some of it may be good science. Some of it is rubbish.
I prefer to look at the data, consider the historical record, use common sense and when I do that, a lot of the peer reviewed literature belongs in the fairy tale section of the library.
Not banned yet, do you really not know? How can you consider yourself a "sceptic" if you don't understand the science you are sceptical about? Since when did 5 years represent a trend in climate measurements?
On the big Yin, you clearly have no sense of humour. Also maybe you don't know where he stood on the main issues.
Don Keiller, so it is just a UK trend is it - all 5 years of it? Is that what you teach your students? One year is weather, 5 years makes a trend! I bet they say, "why did nobody tell us that before?". And where is Tamino wrong if you dismiss him so lightly?
MartinA, are bistable effects obvious? Which proxy reconstructions do you believe in enough to see these 'obvious' effects and to know that they occur on time-scales that are too slow to be bothered about?
Ah, BB I see - no answer to either question, just what appears to be some sort of channeling of "my understanding" and of TBYJ's "stance".
So in the spirit of non responsive comments and subjective sense of humour, here's one you might enjoy on the problems of accepting authority at face value:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/compliance_2012/
I've been reading Booker for years. He's moved up to warp drive. Frustration ultimately boils over into anger. Open rebellion over UK energy policy, previously confined largely to the anorak sceptic blogoshere, has already become commonplace in the Daily Mail Telegraph and Express. UKIP's surge continues as more people realise they have the only common sense energy policies on the manifesto table. Comments on their anti-wind policy appear regularly below numerous press articles and push that fact. Conservative MP's are getting nervous. Many people now regard Metoffice projections as a sick joke and even if so dont give a flying fig anymore. Revolt over energy policy looks set to reach open pandemic proportions if not this year then next.
It might be a bit overly optimistic to say so, but, by the look of reports in the MSM, this might be the weekend that Peak Green was reached in the UK.
So Richard Betts has found a pretext to exit stage left. No surprise. This post is about the hardship that the country is suffering now. Today. Through the length and breadth of the land people are suffering as a direct result of insane energy policy foisted upon us by people like Richard.
Here in Sheffield I look out on a good 12 inches of snow. No biggy in itself but I bet there are many thousands of people that live within a 10 mile radius of me who are bitterly cold simply because they cannot afford the cost of artificially expensive energy to heat their homes - the direct result of policies based on the output of the Met Office supercomputers and their overconfidence in their ability to forecast trends.
The UK is definitely not getting warmer now. In fact the data show it has been cooling for a few years. That in itself does not establish a trend or tell us anything about the future but it does tell us that the energy policies adopted by the UK over the last decade or so are not fit for purpose. They are wrong. Completely and utterly the opposite of what is needed. We need more energy not less. And we need it to be as cheap as humanly possible. Artificially increasing the cost of energy in these circumstances is tantamount to criminal behaviour.
No need to ask why Richard Betts does not want to stay around to defend current energy policy. He knows it is indefensible.
I am just an interested person trying to figure out what really is happening to the climate and when I read this from Richard Betts "When an argument which is entirely grounded in the peer-reviewed literature is described as "disinformation", that's a sign that the other party (ie: you) is not interested in an objective, sensible conversation. I am therefore stepping out of this conversation. Sorry to everyone else." after having read his initial justification for possible 4C increase by end of century I really am thinking "he does not like the heat in the kitchen". I recall the pronouncements starting with Gavin Smith that 10 years without a temperature increase a potential problem for AGW and the NOAA with 15 years to be followed by that Ramsdorf he quotes and his 17 years. Well we are at the 17 years without any statistically significant global warming. I was reading somewhere that Ramsdorf is now working on a paper extending the 17 years and the infamous IPCC chairman is talking about 30-40 years if I remember correctly. So it does not matter how long the temperature stands level, a peer reviewed paper will appear extending the standstill period fielding some spurious arguments in support. With that in mind I wonder when the acceleration will start that will take us to 4C from when CO2 was at 280ppm. Richard Betts should return and provide us with a temperature courve year by year taking us to 2100 and showing the progression of temperatures. I wonder if he and his colleagues realise the wrath if the lights go out in a situation of falling or even steady temperatures? The wayback machine will retains all their pronouncements to be retrieved.
@BB "Don Keiller, so it is just a UK trend is it - all 5 years of it? Is that what you teach your students?"
Once again please point out where exactly I said these things you attribute to me?
Put up or shut up.
Peak Green would indeed be a blessing (theduke, 3:38 PM).
The emotive nature-worship which it involves has caused a great deal of loss of several kinds to society, from the casualties of the Carson-inspired restrictions on DDT, through the starvation brought about by bio-fuels, to the hardships, lost opportunities, and environmental damage due to such as windfarms being so substantially subsidised.
But perhaps the biggest losses of all are in the less well-defined harms to the young and other vulnerable groups, due to the various attacks on industrial progress and associated promotions of imminent doom to man or beast.
Somewhere in the mess, there will also, I suppose, be a major loss due to the degradation (the Australian physicist John Reid* calls it 'prostitution') of science through the major allocations of funds for research occasioned by ‘green hysteria’, and of course promoted by interested parties.
So well done Christopher Booker for standing up against the madness and the mess. An earlier than otherwise repeal of the Climate Change Act could well be one result as his words, and such as those in his paper's editorial yesterday, strike home.
* http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/03/ring-wing-no-i-m-a-liberal-and-proud-of-it
Tallbloke is saying what a lot of us would like to say.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/a-personal-appeal-to-britains-politicians-wake-up-from-your-warm-dreams-fuel-poverty-is-killing-people/comment-page-1/#comment-48021
Don Keiller, in the non-sceptic world, sentences ending in a question mark are normally questions. Or are you sceptical about that too?
One energy boss's view:
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2013/03/EON-chief-denounces-UK-governments-carbon-floor-price.html
@BB Do not feed the Troll
Ignote the troll. He's just trying to be disruptive. He obviously doesn't care about the misery and deaths that the climate scare and resultant crazy energy policy are causing.
So here is just another thought from a non climate scientist on Richard Betts, his participation and subsequent non participation.
In 130 years we have had a global temperature increase of 0.8C (generally recognised as I understand it). So that is near enough 0.06C/decade. MET office predicts no change to 0.8C to 2017 so Betts needs to increase global temperatures by 3.2C between 2017 and 2100. Taking a broad brush and dividing 3.2 with 8 decades gives us 0.4C/decade or over 6 times the rate of increase from say 1880 to 2017. This is what I could call a tall order hence my request that Mr Betts returns to the fold and provide us with a global surface temperature graph from 2013 to 2100 ending with 4C more than in 1880. Please do not refer to Ramsdorf and Tamino, but provide your own tabulation with suitable reference Mr Betts. When is this "unprecedented" acceleration going to take place? Perhaps a projected CO2 emission scenario could be attached for our edification.
To trolls like BB and ZDB: Go and start your own blogs instead of hijacking discussions here with your BS. Seems a fair enough suggestion to me.
The Daily Mail/Mail On Sunday seems to be making a switch away from The Forces of Darkness.
A well-run state should never be taken by surprise. It should have plans for every reasonable contingency, and then a few more besides. But it is clear that the current blast of cold weather – not that unlikely in March – has exposed huge and worrying gaps in our energy plans.
More significantly, it has shown that the virtual takeover of Whitehall by Green zealots has actively prevented this country from making wise plans for the future.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2298157/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Zealots-let-lights-out.html
I'm not into arguments about trends, though I would have said that the Met Office figures certainly are talking about the last five winters and it might be worth trying to separate out some people's obsession with trends (which they use rather like a drunk uses a lamp-post, for support rather than illumination) and ask how long it has to be before we accept that what is happening now to the old and the vulnerable is something we cannot just ignore because it doesn't fit into their idea of what a trend should look like.
Personally I am less interested in whether or not global warming is or is not happening and if it is by how much and who or what is causing it — since there is not a thing we can do about it — than I am about the well-being of the population whether in their ability to keep warm by being able to afford to turn the heating on or having a job that enables to feed them and their family and afford at least a few of life's comforts.
The government, at the behest of a misguided and vanishingly small minority of activist individuals, is betraying the electorate in both of these grounds and all the trolls can do is nit-pick.
Meanwhile my little friend Louse Gray is telling us that the UK is about to have its first white Easter for -- wait for it! -- five years! Wow!!
Given that Easter is a moveable feast and that five years ago it was only one day later than the earliest date it can possibly be (Mar 22) and that two years later it was only two days earlier than the latest date it can be (Apr 25) this is hardly a particularly meaningful statistic.
But when press releases pass from eye to hand without passing through brain, what can you expect?
What we are doing however is cripple our economy, and throw millions into fuel poverty when it will have zero effect on the supposed problem of global warming. This is because however much CO2 emissions we cut out, however much we reduce our coal burning, the results are too small to make any dent in what everyone else is doing.
Or more to the point: the results are too small to make any dent in what nature is doing.
All we get is yadda, yadda, yadda from politicians; it matters not whether they are Pink, Red or Yellow they sing from the same green hymnal and Brussels is the orchestrator and CinC choirmaster.
Vote UKIP - at least they are real people and think like real people - hoping for something to turn up from Dave's lot is to say the least - clutching at straws.
There is no hope, unless good people start making lots of protest noise and vote with your minds not with your hearts.
michel said (first post):
No, at least, not anyone I know disagreeing now would think current actions were reasonable. In fact, most are wondering why we don't do what we know actually works best (historically): adapt. That "current actions" always seem to fall under the category of enslaving humanity, and always fail, makes me even less likely to believe such actions are ever reasonable, justifiable, or even sane.
Mark
Richard Betts,
I'd be looking for another job while the going's good.
You don't want to be left apologising for this mess when the dung hits the whirling thing and the blackouts start.
What is it with climate scientists that makes them put so much faith in peer-review? Really, isn't there a peer-reviewed study that says most published (peer-reviewed) results are actually incorrect? Wouldn't that sort of be a conundrum for someone like Betts? It's peer-reviewed an all that! It's like saying that there's a 50% chance what you are citing is correct, so it must be correct. IPCC math, I guess.
Mark
Why do people talk about changes in CO2 concentration when it is the log of concentration that is supposedly significant? Is that accelerating too?
What first interested me in climagechangeology was a desire to know how it was possible to put a figure on the difference in 'global temperature' of 100+ years ago to within a small fraction of a degree.
I learned that it's surprisingly easy to do, provided you abandon any regard for objectivity or personal integrity.
Mark T,
The first time I came across peer-review being spoken of as God's stamp of approval, was about 20 years ago on usenet by some loon with a PhD in Astrology.
All it was generally regarded as was a safeguard for journals to ensure they werem't publishing complete tripe with obvious holes in the methods used or analysis. Endless peer reviewed work has been shown to be incapable of replication, specious, or faulty.
"You, sir, should be ashamed."
I agree. The Met Office is institutionally alarmist.
Over and out.
Of course, Richard Betts completely dodges the point, which is that in climate science peer review has become 'disinformational' in the sense that it has become rigged to accentuate CO2 as a control knob and any interference in the narrative is dealt with harshly. Witness also the careful, if fraudulent, construction of a case again for the hockey stick, and more alarum, just under the deadline for AR5. It's a balloon, a madness of the herd, and the cliff approaches.
=================
cosmic, we used to speak of 'the ship hitting the sand', but this may be a case of the skit falling into the band.
============
Please don't put words in my mouth - it's a nasty tactic.
There have been abrupt events (lethal cosmic ray bursts? asteroid collisions?) occurring at intervals of 100's of megayears. They are not relevant to discussions of allegedly human-caused climate change.
Daily Telegraphs calls for the repel of the Climate Change Act
What if the Sun ,The Mail ,The Express ,The Times even the Daily Mirror all started calling for the Climate Change Act to be scrapped.
Milliband ,Cameron, Clegg they conspired with Hugh Grant and Lord Levison to destroy the Living of our free press.For what exposing our greedy expenses abusing politicians and Exposing the immorality of showbiz Celebrities who cynically project a wholesome image just to further their popularity and their fat superstar pay cheques.
If Hugh Grant had been caught with a Prostitute before he made Four Weddings we all have flocked to the cinema to see it then.And would Richard Curtis have casted him in the role.
The very week that the our government decided to invest in ten thousand extra wind mills and then sack ten thousand police officers Riots break out all over England.Our government the establishment has lost the confidence of the police.So one little muttered swear word becomes Plebgate.
Fleet Street editors want payback from the smug sanctimonious political Elites because of Levison go after the Climate Change Act .That is the story Climate Change there isnt any and poor people are dying in the cold.
Betts: " up to 15C in the Arctic an extreme but plausible case."
The Canadian Arctic has been cooling at -8C to -12C per decade for the last 3 years.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/nunavut-canadas-arctic-temperature-falling-from-8c-to-12c-per-decade-for-last-3-years/
2010 was the tipping point. If you don't believe in tipping points, you are a denier.
Martin, you are avoiding the question. "Obviously", you said, "there have been bistable effects on timescales of 100's of megayears. Discussion of them is not relevant to discussions of climate change on human timescales." You don't like my paraphrasing of that; fine. But you are so sure about this that you must have a source - a proxy of some sort that proves to you that the climate is bistable and the time-scale over which the change between states occurs. So what is this reliable proxy that spans 100's of millions of years and gives the necessary resolution (speed of change)? It is an easy question for someone so sure of the facts.
Phillip Bratby, as discussed before, fuel poverty is primarily a matter of poverty. But if one wanted to attack fuel poverty directly, of course, why not means-test the winter fuel allowance and concentrate the money on those you consider fuel-poor. You could try, but expect an outcry from the Mail, Telegraph, Guardian etc. It would be a brave government that tried. So instead, perhaps you might say, stop the wind-farms and the feed-in-tariffs. But do you think "fuel poverty" came into existence only in the last few years? Is it just a useful hammer to bash your hated wind-farms or a matter of principle? I think we can be pretty sure that UKIP will not increase the welfare budget to ease the suffering of the remaining "fuel-poor" once they have abolished wind-farms.
While you are feasting on fuel poverty, you could try a side-serving of clean-air-poverty. Try getting a little bit upset about the thousands of lives that are shortened as a result of pollution from cars and lorries. Oh I forget..., you probably live in the green and pleasant un-polluted countryside - blocking wind-farm from your view is much more important than improving the air-quality of those who are stuck in towns.
Mar 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM | Don Keiller
Oh come on, I bet you would really! You love a good old argument ... :-)
OK, I can see I made a mistake in thinking that since you are a fellow scientist, you'd look at the paper I cited objectively - but no, because it's by Rahmstorf, it must be wrong - even though I didn't mention his "adjusted" data, I just used it as a source for the unadjusted observations.
But since you mention HadCRUT4, yes, let's look at that. That is, after all, your source for the 0.07 C per decade averaged over the last 100 years, so presumably you are happy with that paper. What do they say for more recent decades - say, the last 30 years...? Ah yes, they say 0.17 degC/decade from 1979 to 2010.
So, yes please, let's go with your source (HadCRUT4) not mine (Rahmstorf) as yours suggests a slightly faster warming in recent decades.
10yr rolling trend (rate of change) for HadCRUT4 and its Ocean element - HadSST3 have been negative (cooling) since Jan 2011.
CRUTEM4 - the land element only turned negative when the northern hemisphere land turned negative in Dec 2012. Southern hemisphere land 10yr had already turned negative in May 2011.
The conventional thinking is that land warms and cools quicker than the oceans?
As the NH land 30yr rate of warming is at present nearly 3 times that of the SH land and HadSST3 there would therefore appear to be plenty of scope for a downturn in NH land surface temps. Will it happen, don't know, nobody does. As always only time will tell.