Thursday
Apr182013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Walport on climate change
Apr 18, 2013 Mark Walport, the UK's new chief scientific advisor was interviewed on the BBC's World at One show. In an introductory segment Roger Harrabin suggested he would not be as "dogmatic" as Beddington on climate and this supposition was certainly tested by the interviewer Martha Kearney who pressed the new man for a bit of support on the green front.
The relevant segment is below.
Reader Comments (38)
Is he being a little more circumspect because the EU's energy chief has said he wants to prioritise affordability over 'purely reducing greenhouse gas emissions'? (In other words, if Germany says it's ok, we can say it).
Doesn't say much for the screaming urgency supposedly involved, though, does it?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/energy-change-in-eu-strategy.html
Superb Andrew - thanks for pointing to this. Note the classic non-sequitur at the end. I paraphrase only very slightly.
Come again? I mean, really, Martha Kearney I consider one of our more intelligent radio journalists. How does the statement "There's no doubt the global climate is warming" (assuming 1850 to present as the focus of that) lead automatically to 'need for urgency in tackling climate change'. If we thought there'd been 0.1 deg C warming in that time would that necessitate urgency? Given about 0.7, as we think, then what? Low sensitivity is very likely, on the face of it, and thus no urgency.
Come on, up your game BBC. I mean, really, up your game.
As for Walport, OK so far. I liked him the one time I talked to him.
Is this a Buggins-Turn-Next post or did he make it past sleeping gatekeepers? Either way, came across as an improvement over Bedders. And lucid too!
Three lenses, energy security, energy price and the environment. I would have said that in precisely the same way if I'd just taken over as the CSA to the government, anything else would give the impression that he might be advising that the environmental gravy train will be shunted into a siding, and would have the enviros and troughers alike calling for his sacking on day 1.
I hear a man preparing the patient, i.e. extreme green policies, for some tough medicine.
The repeated use of the keyword "balance" is really new and encouraging. That, I think, is an important straw in the wind. "Balance" I perceive as code for honesty, in this context.
Tony.
Kearney's attempt to push Walport to prioritise tackling the 'global warming' is precisely what we have come to expect of the BBC. Must try to rescue some value for the heavily green invested BBC pension funds eh.
Time for the TV license to go I think, and see how long they can last in the real world.
The guy sounded normal, as you'd expect from a person in that position, which itself isn't anything special but coming after Beddington's activist alarmism is a very refreshing contrast to hear.
When he was talking about providing the best evidence and letting the politicians decide he reminded me of Pielke Jr words.
Trifocals, absolutely clear.
======
Richard Drake, I agree with virtually all of your comment, but Martha Kearney? She is as unobjective on climate change as the appalling Lawrence McGinty on the other side. A woman not to be listened to.
Apr 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM | Richard Drake
Your comment about Martha Kearney is not quite fair. In fact, she topped and tailed the interview with a question about whether Walport agreed with Beddington's "urgent need" exhortation. The first time, Walport replied with a hurried "yes' before moving quickly to his theme: energy and the need to consider it from different angles - security (keep the lights on), cost (energy underpins everything and industry depends on it) and sustainability/climate change (he linked these each time he mentioned them). It was probably fortunate that she asked him again as, this time, Walport was able to answer with his "but we are acting now but need to do so while maintaining energy supplies" mantra.
As I said on Unthreaded this morning, it was very interesting: I could scarcely believe what I was hearing. My cautious conclusion is that it was most encouraging.
David and Robin: I think I'm being criticised - very politely, thank you - both for being too positive about Kearney and too negative!
David: She's someone I have come to like as a professional since her Newsnight days but I don't listen to her very often. I don't really have any previous memory of her on climate concerns. As you went to write something so negative, did it cross your mind to give at least one example?
Robin: Without listening to it again I take your word for it on the topping and tailing. Another way to say it is to aim at the editor's chair - it's ridiculous by now to try to boil down everything about the new man's attitude to energy issues in such a few minutes. But I agree with your last sentence. Caution and all. :)
Without the advantage of hearing the Palab Ghosh segment, I am astonished that as far as the BBC is concerned Science = climate change. With the exception of his mantra on uncontrovertible evidence toward the end the new chap sounded more plausible than the last and I feel a little more comfortable that the lights will stay on. I wonder what these policy advisers are really saying behind closed doors?
I watch a BBC Tribute show to the old BBC TV Centre in White City South West London the other day hosted by Micheal Grade.They had Parky, Brucle, Ronnie, Corbett Miranda, Attenborough Wispering Bob Harris Noel Edmonds and Victoria Coren wondering around the old iconic BBC building .Blue Peter Garden ,Roy Castle with the 200 Tap Dancers on Record Breakers etc etc .
So I read up about the Old BBC TV Centre on Wilkipedia.
The whole BBC complex with its studios with the Cameras ,lighting , and offices was Powered by its own Independant Megga Watt Gas Turbine Generator.
Apparently the last Live broadcasted show was always The Old Grey Wistle Test of a night time with Bowie The Clash, The Specials on BBC2..It took too long for the BBC Generator to run down then run it back to full power so they never switched it off .And the BBC made a profit selling its excess KWs to the Grid. Now thats what you call a proper Energy Policy.
So now the BBC has moved to Mancester.And they are sharing the facilities with Grenada Building the new set for Corronation Street.Interesting to find out what Media City in Salford is actually plugged into.
Paxman on Newsnight Chris Evans on The One Show ,Dimbleby live fron London on Question Time, Carol Kirkwood doing the Weather on BBC Breakfast with the Studio lights going On and Off.
Imagine the BBC totally powered by Zero Carbon ,Sustainable, Eco Friendly Deben Tim Yeo owning Wind Turbines.Guardian will love it.
That would be interesting.
This morning on the Toady Programme there was a short piece about a research scientist who has gone to prison for fudging his experiments (he was testing cancer drugs on animals and showing hockeystick results it would seem). Apparently a new law in 1999 made this possible. I wonder if the CRU-UEA, the MetOffice etc. need to take note?
PS I wonder if this guy will share a cell with Mr Christopher Huhne?
@Anthony Ratliffe
The repeated use of the keyword "balance" is really new and encouraging. That, I think, is an important straw in the wind. "Balance" I perceive as code for honesty, in this context.
Er... this is a rather simplistic view. Honesty is not a word which would be recognised in the upper levels of politics, except as an insult.
What 'Balance' is code for is 'the ability to contradict myself and do a U-turn'. As in:
"Of course Global Warming is the single most important danger facing us, but I have to balance this against the immediate needs of the NHS, so I have reluctantly allowed them to retain heating and lighting in hospitals..."
"No doubt the climate is warming" ?? Met Office, Head of IPCC even, James Hansen, [wow, goodness me], have all accepted that it has been cooling or at least static for 16 years. On which planet is this man living? Surely a man who has been appointed as the UK's new chief scientific adviser, would know this?
DAVID SPURGEON:
I think you should afford him the benefit of the doubt. Having given a brief interview adeptly playing down the preeminence of the climate change issue - an astonishing change from his alarmist predecessors - I can understand his reluctance to avoid the "15 year flatlining" debate. After all, the climate has been warming since 1850. He's given himself plenty of room for more detailed discussion later.
I suspect (hope) he's "played a blinder" (now where did I hear that?). As I said above, I'm cautiously encouraged.
Off Topic.
"The gates of Hell" or the Satanic Gasses (apoligies to Patrick Michaels)
Have once had my knuckles rapped by our Bishop for mentioning religion on here, I dare to broach the subject again. But please indulge me.
As a practising catholic and a committed CAGW agnostic, I peruse many blogs and sites, but always start and finish at Bishop Hill with its plethora of experts.
Recently I came across an interesting piece. It was at www.catholiconline.org -news-europe and titled 'Archeololists believe they've found the fabled Gates of Hell'.
They discovery was made by Francesco D'Andria of Salento University in Pamukkale south western Turkey.
"We could see the caves lethal properties during the excavation" he said. "Several birds died as they tried to get close to the warm opening, instantly killed by the CARBON DIOXIDE fumes" This statement is then repeated in the accompaning Video clip.
Now knock me down with a feather, but the CO2 level must be higher than about 10,000 ppm to flatten a bird in flight, or are there some windmills nearby which could deliver the coup de gras instantly?
Could some of our resident experts on here enlighten me about lethal levels of CO2, or are they confusing our benign plant food with CO or that far more lethal H2S. I know that submariners are fine at levels of 4000ppm and astronauts at up to 8000ppm, but what level would kill a sacrificial bull or a canary in blackdamp.
I wonder if Mikey Mann and the team are aware of this source of 'deadly' CO2 and how much Global Warming it must be causing in the Caucasus.
I await with bated breath to be enlightened.
Cautiously optimistic. "Balance" is a better way of saying that horrible expression "I hear what you are saying, but...". It's a polite way to say "No".
Considering the diplomatic skill required to survive in the political minefield he has entered, and with people like Nurse and Beddington still 'bedding him in' to his role (re Guardian article below), this is a very encouraging start.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/29/sir-mark-walport-chief-scientific-adviser
I'm going to give Walpole the benefit of the doubt, so far. But I consider it a sign of how bad things are that I, and others on this blog, are willing to do so.
I hope oldmike above is right when he wrote "I hear a man preparing the patient, i.e. extreme green policies, for some tough medicine."
Were the subject anything other than cAGW I would have been yelling at the radio "Why is he not telling it straight to this interviewer's face."
Patrick Healy,
The air that comes out of your lungs is normally enriched to about 4% CO2 (roughly 40,000 ppm). There is a level which becomes lethal for humans and birds alike, and it will be less than the level at which death occurs simply due to oxygen deficiency. I don't know what the level is offhand, but birds are likely to succumb more quickly because of their smaller size and higher metabolic rates. Other toxic gases can also emanate from caves and mines which, as you know, is what canaries were once used for detecting.
There are recorded events of natural sources out-gassing CO2 and asphyxiating large numbers of people and animals e.g. Lake Nyos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_nyos
I agree, Pharos.
Here (from the article to which you referred) is Walport's comment about his appointment:
That may of course prove to no more than meaningless motherhood. But, having listened to him today and especially to his repeated emphasis on the importance of energy and the needs of industry and the economy, I somehow doubt it. We'll see.
But in his search for "balance" Walport is still happy to see three of the 6 Drax turbines closed and the other three converted to burn imported Canadian wood.
The Canadian wood produces more CO2 per kwh than did the coal it replaces. It costs twice what it did a couple of years ago because there is not enough of it to meet the burgeoning EU demand. Drax will produce only some 10 to 15% of the electricity it used too and its now tiny output will be more than twice as expensive as was the coal fired power.
Drax is built on top of a coalfield still stuffed full of coal and surrounded by villages where unemployed miners collect their dole and dream of the old days when they could earn an honest living.
I do not see how any of this can be described as "balanced" or any way in the best interests of the United Kingdom and its people.
(Not being as keen as some as to who has been appointed to what)
He sounds a lot younger than I would expect for a CSA. He also seems to have 'got' the idea that there are differing perspectives regarding any aspect of policy. If I get the time tomorrow then I will look him up to see if I'm anywhere close to my 'picture' of the man.
Can't all be bad if he recognises that there are often many aspects to a given policy. Then again, those not considered 'on message' are often thrown overboard quite early. I suspect, after that appearance, that he should be inflating the water wings just in case. Probably a little before his time, someone to be re-called in a different environment a few years from now perhaps?
Namesake (dave) - totally agree - it is the policy of the asylum.
patrick healy
A simple demonstration of your body's response to CO2.
Fill a dustbin bag with air , use your hand to seal it around your mouth and rebreath. Roughly speaking, the bag will contain 40 litres and you will exhale 40ml of CO2 per breath.After 10 breaths you will be breathing 1% Co2, after 20 breaths 2% CO2, and after 30 breaths 3% CO2.
If your body responds like mine you will be fine for the first 10 breaths. Thereafter the volume of each successive breath will gradually increase until after 30-40 breaths you will be breathing deeply as if recovering from a sprint.
Best not try it if you have a heart or breathing disorder.
How about your bodys response to reduce O2 partial pressure.
And your point is what?
Actually what you descrbe is a treatment for hyperventilation.
Doubtless Walport will change once he has had a few visits from the "men in green suits".
Still, he cannot be worse than Beddington.
Strewth! No doubt about it...it is still all uphill.
At least he seems to be a CSA who has discarded blinkers in favour of peripheral vision. The real question now is this. Does he have eyes in the back of his head for the daggers that will raised there - poised to strike?
'No doubt that the climate is warming..'
Can we have evidence of that, please..?
Richard Drake, just one example from memory. When President Obama was first elected, and gave his inaugural speech. Martha Kearney gave a false report, cutting his speech to give the impression he had said something different than what he had said, and even changing the order of his comments to achieve her objective.
Old Mike
Your body does not respond to reduced O2 partial pressure, only to CO2. This is why a child died recently from anoxia while playing with helium. It is also why a pilot flying at high altitude can lose his oxygen supply and become unconscious without realising there is a problem.
Increasing partial pressure above 1% causes the volume of your breaths to increase. Above 3% you are using almost all your available lung volume as your body tries to flush out what it perceives as an excessive blood CO2 level. This can be a problem in high CO2 environments such as an enriched greenhouse.
If you are hyperventilating for some other reason rebreathing into a bag resets your breathing reflex.
patrick healy was asking about the biology of high CO2 levels. The bag was an easy way for him to experience the effect for himself.
Richard Drake, I rushed my reply above and was wrong to say that she tried to give the impression he had said something he hadn't. Her editing was designed to give the impression Obama had given higher priority to climate change in his speech than he actually had. But it was still wrong, and is an example of her lack of objectivity on matters relating to AGW.
Richard Drake, I think I'm going senile. My comments referred to Susan Watts not Martha Kearney. Apologies to everyone, I have no idea of Martha's position on AGW.
Patrick Healy,
100,000ppm and above is considered lethal for humans in less than 30 minutes. Long-term exposure above 30,000ppm will induce dizziness or intoxication in most people.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html
Make chart of temperature versus time. Draw line through data from 1970 to 1998 and project that into the future for as far as you want. Send invoice to government for £100 million.