Sunday
Sep222013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill AR5 Leake
Sep 22, 2013 Climate: IPCC Climate: Parliament Jonathan Leake has a full-page article in the Sunday Times (paywalled). It's a pretty good summary of the state of play as we head to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report next week although I don't think there's anything that will be news to readers here.
What seems clear is that whatever our response to climate change, whether it is geoengineering or replacing fossil-fueled electricity generation with low-carbon power stations and wind farms, the bills are likely to be astronomical. As long as public confidence in climate science is falling, it would be a brave political leader to sanction spending on that scale.
Reader Comments (50)
He ignores the third response to "climate changeTM", which is to ignore it. That is the zero cost option.
He ignores the fourth response to "climate changeTM", which is to adapt to whatever happens. This is the next low cost option.
Each Sunday I put myself through torture and read the observer. It's always useful to see a different side of the climate change debate.
Front page headline today "Scientists give their starkest warning yet on climate change" Robin McKie
"..burning of fossil fuels and deforestation have now led to a warming of the entire globe including land surfaces, oceans and the atmosphere".
"Extreme weather events, including heatwaves and storms, have increased in many regions while ice sheets are dwindling at an alarming rate. In addition, sea levels are rising while the oceans are being acidified - a development that COULD see the planet's coral reefs disappearing before the end of the century."
As a science writer one would think he would have a look at the large amount of information available at the click of a mouse, as to the state of the climate reality.
Everything he quotes about the state of the climate is WRONG according to the the world's experts, which of course excludes "climate change expert Lord Stern" as he quotes.
Have the people who wrote the AR5 ever heard of Aesop's fable the Boy who Cried "Wolf"?
@Roy
...Have the people who wrote the AR5 ever heard of Aesop's fable the Boy who Cried "Wolf"?...
Archaeologists have recently uncovered a lost part of that fable, which tells how the shepherds were persuaded to outsource their flock-watching to a foreign goat-herding company, who then employed out-of-work children and paid them bonuses each time they reported a wolf....
Sep 22, 2013 at 10:15 AM | Dodgy Geezer Brilliant and spot on.
SPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPINSPIN
- endless spin!
Neil C; in a similar vein I grit my teeth and read the articles in the "i" (concise Independent). The report on Arctic ice was a gem; it was all about how levels were well below normal, yadda, yadda, with just a few words about the recovery from last year. Of course there was no mention of the Antarctic nor of rising Polar bear numbers. The predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 were also notable for their absence.
Wheeeeww that's better, Chris Booker's piece this morning is much nearer reality. Talking of reality, Antarctic Sea Ice area continues to grow, Arctic Sea Ice area is 60% greater than last year (contrary to UKMO no change forecast), temperatures have been static/cooling for 17 years global/20 years UK, less hurricanes and weaker, less tornado activity and weaker blah blah...
Why can't science writers and policy makers just spend a little time investigating themselves? Are they scared of reality?
The only thing that matters is enforceable targets and those days are well and truly over. China, India and Obamaland will never agree to anything. The EU system is bust and if we had a democracy, it would be gone for ever.
As we're part of the EU now just a couple of figures on deforestation
Forests surface area in France increased by more than 507,000 hectares between 1992 and 2000. (ref http://www.climateadaptation.eu/france/forestry-and-peatlands/)
Forests increased by approx.1million hectares in Germany over the past four decades.Source http://www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/GermanForests.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
I suspect for most EU members the story is similar.
Actually the Times article is not too bad, all things considered.
Remember that they have a lot of face to save. They CAN'T just write a piece saying that:
a) we have been completely incompetent in reporting this issue, or
b) we have simply been lying to you.
Instead, they have to gradually indicate that things are changing. This article leads on the idea that Global Warming WAS fixed as definitely happening, and NOW things seem much more uncertain. Various predictions have been missed. In particular it's interesting to see that they don't spend a lot of time explaining how "even though there are problems with the theory, it's still sound", which is the standard position of Nature, for instance.
They are positioning themselves away from mindless acceptance, and moving into mindless neutrality.
I just read Leake's Times article via the GWPF site, he's got an amusing way with words.
Of the IPCC meeting in Stockholm:
"The meeting, in a former brewery, will also generate a sober 30 page document advising politicians how to respond."
Can be interpreted in various ways!
My prediction is that, as we move our advance troops forward through the remains of their first set of defences, we will come up against their second defensive line. This will say that:
1 - Climate Science is horribly complicated
2 - It is in its infancy, and no one should be surprised if they get a few points wrong from time to time.
3 - This has all happened because the politicians asked the scientists for answers before they were ready
4 - No one is therefore to blame
5 - It's still a good idea to convert energy supply to windmills and solar, because they are 'sustainable'.
Sandy S; those forestry figures only tell part of the story, I suspect. Years ago I did some work with Scandinavian paper companies. They used to comment that the amount of wood they cut in a year was less than the growth of the remaining trees - before any replanting.
So I expect that the overall increase in European forests - in terms of the amount of biomass - is much greater than those reports indicate. Not only more trees but bigger trees....great stuff that CO2.
Dodgy Geezer (Sep 22, 2013 at 1:47 PM): can anyone seriously consider that wind and solar are “sustainable”? My understanding is that the erection of one windmill consumes more energy than will be obtained from that windmill in its entire projected life. That is as logical as Brown’s economics: “We are in this mess because of excessive borrowing, so we will resolve it by borrowing more.” Where is the sense in that?
I have no idea about the actual cost of solar panel installation or its projected life, but know someone who was quoted £15,000; oddly, he has now had it installed, and says that he has not had an electric bill since installation. Based upon my own (high) consumption and bills, it will be about 20 years before that sum is returned to him; lower consumption will take longer to return.
On the subject of Europe's forests, this document
http://www.foresteurope.org/documentos/State_of_Europes_Forests_2011_Report_Revised_November_2011.pdf
states that 17,000,000 hectares of forest have been added in the last two decades. Which in the units I grew up with, is 4 million acres a year.
It probably means the end of the world is nigh, but I can't quite sense the meme yet...
...can anyone seriously consider that wind and solar are “sustainable”?...
My dear Radical Rodent,
No one is going to be 'seriously considering' anything. If anyone were to consider these words they would realise that they are meaningless. The words are used because, like 'renewable' and 'green', they are 'good' words, and promote a warm feeling.
If any serious consideration were to be applied, it would be realise that these concepts only make sense if you assume that mankind has reached the peak of its utilisation of natural resources, and from henceforth will cease all technical development. It is therefore VERY important for the Greens NOT to explain what these words mean at all, and to divert everyone from 'seriously considering' them.
The argument for wind power goes like this:
1 - Wind power is 'sustainable', therefore it is good
2 - Wind power will require large costs to deliver a very poor service.
3 - Therefore we must pay large costs to obtain a poor service, because that is 'good'
Note that there is NO mention of energy provision efficiency or meeting projected demand there. These are NOT part of the justification. The justification is made on religious and moral grounds...
Hahaha - make that 2 million acres a year..... the destruction of life in Europe through catastrophic over-forestation will therefore be delayed.
Has anyone noticed that UKIP policy has gone totally climate sceptical?
Were the BBC was too busy chasing Godfrey to even notice?
Have the people who wrote the AR5 ever heard of Aesop's fable the Boy who Cried "Wolf"?
Sep 22, 2013 at 9:38 AM | Roy
The wolf ate him.
No it didn't, it ate his flock.
The point of the story is that if you lie and embellish then you will not be believed when you tell the truth. The lies and embellishments told by those who create the IPCC narrative means that, even if they started telling the unembellished truth, they will not be believed. They no longer have any credibility.
Samuel Croxall (1690 - 1752) nicely sums it up:
when we are alarmed with imaginary dangers in respect of the public, till the cry grows quite stale and threadbare, how can it be expected we should know when to guard ourselves against real ones?
This is what the alarmists have effectively done with their cries of rising seas, expanding deserts, plagues, hurricanes, floods etc. If ever there really is a global problem that we can actually take action against who is going to believe them?
Forests surface area in France increased by more than 507,000 hectares between 1992 and 2000
Which considering the amount we use for fuel, certainly in my area, is not bad going!
Sep 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson
And what we sell to the UK. Nearly all oak imported into the UK comes from central france.
states that 17,000,000 hectares of forest have been added in the last two decades. Which in the units I grew up with, is 4 million acres a year.
It probably means the end of the world is nigh, but I can't quite sense the meme yet...
Sep 22, 2013 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnteros
40.800.000 acres. 2.4 acres to the hectare, 4000 m² to the acre approx.
Interesting to note Andrew Bolt's attitude to the sacking of Flannery in Oz in the Aussie Telegraph.
"Tim Flannery has been sacked - and so too should journalists who are climate change scaremongers"
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/tim-flannery-has-been-sacked-8212-and-so-too-should-journalists-who-are-climate-change-scaremongers/story-fnj45fva-1226724721844
Plenty (i.e. virtually all) uk churnalists need to sit up and take notice. Cutting and pasting NGO handouts as facts (Louise Gray) and blindly championing the WWF warmist cause (Geoffrey Lean) will no longer be acceptable.
The world is moving on and for them, among others, to stay stubbornly in the CAGW camp will mark them down for ever as publicists rather than journalists; who knows, maybe that's their real day-job.
Although Leake has come round and is rather more open to the possibility that we've all been spun a yarn his colleague Ben Webster is not.
AGW is a unique subject in the field of journalism. That is because there are now Environmental Journalists.
If Keynes or Hayek are disproven then Economic Journalists can move on with the new paradigm.
If snooker becomes unfashionable then Snooker Journalists just cover the new sport.
But if cAGW is bunkum then the environment sections of the media will fall back into the science sections... and there isn't much science that has mainstream urgency like the end of the world does. And all news media are looing to cut costs.
Environmental Journalists are committed to one sided reporting at the expense of the truth.
That is their job.
In every sense of the word.
From the Lewis article:
and the corollary is "so Greens go by air, but you sceptics must not. "
Why is Public confidence in AGW falling?
None of the "forecasts", projections" "predictions", or whatever weasel words are used, are coming true.
Our Met Office is a major culprit- Here is its latest in a long line of high profile gaffs.
http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2013/06/images/summary/sio_june_fig1_final.png
How much did they pay for their supercomputer?
How much more are these rent-seekers and snake-oil salesmen asking for?
TerryS
You might like to join this discussion Discussion > We're Losing geoffchambers on the Discussions section
"Power at any price" now has another clear meaning.
Do you actually know what an argumentum ad hominem is? It is not what you are asserting, that's for sure. Apparently believers never study elementary logic (while expressing shock that we skeptics find their logic rather broken).
Mark
Oh, the dumba** must have been snipped. Good, it is so tiring.
Mark
For Dodgy Geezer:
6. More research needs to be done. Please send money.
Dodgy Geezer (Sep 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM): you don’t think there is some sort of con going on, do you?
Do you think that anyone else might have spotted it?
Electricity generation is not the only essential provided by fossil fuels. There is the small matter of transport, general space &water heating, the petrochemical industry etc etc. The whole 'de-carbonising' project was doomed from its conception.
michael hart on Sep 22, 2013 at 11:44 PM
"Electricity generation is not the only essential provided by fossil fuels."
Do electric cars have powerful enough heaters to keep feet warm in northern latitudes?
After human comfort, a mist free windscreen would be bonus.
We don't all live in sunny California.
No. At least, not without sacrificing the already scant battery charge if the car was 100% electric (i.e. not a hybrid). However the journey would at least be mercifully quick due to the short range of existing technology. Unless you get trapped in a snow drift. :)
I also read a while ago that if (IF) a new battery advance made it possible to convert all road vehicles completely to electric, then every almost every street in the country would need a new electricity substation as well as a vastly beefed up National Grid. The electricity demand would be phenomenal.
Hydrocarbons really are a fantastic way to store energy.
Sep 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM | eSmiff : "...The EU system ... if we had a democracy, it would be gone for ever."
I believe these words will be the quote of the century for Europians.
Re Sep 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM | TerryS
Samuel Croxall (1690 - 1752) nicely sums it up:
It seems this problem has exacerbated people for a very long time, if Samuel had to go to the extent of writing a book about the subject back in the 1700's, in order to explain the fallacy of it.
"As we're part of the EU now just a couple of figures on deforestation"
Well OF COURSE the EU are increasing forests - they are outsourcing forest products to South America and SE Asia where, no surprise, there are less regulations and therefore no problems cutting down trees. Very similar to EU fishing policies - can't "strip mine" fish from EU waters? No problem, go to Africa where you can! Or even CO2 - can't emit it in the EU? No problem, get it from China, where there are no such problems. So EU are "white hats" - don't mention "global" though... that's only a good argument when it's on the EU side, if it's against them, it's errr, umm, fallacious, 'cause see? we're doing OUR bit!
Radical Rodent, you mention the economics of solar panels.
Four years ago I toyed with the idea of a business installing them and did the technical sums as a precursor to P&L and cashflow forecast.
Making realistic assumptions about actual W/m2 yield, and angle of incidence, and UK insolation, and cost price the payback period I derived was 150 years in pure cash terms. Given "discounted cash flow" requirements (comparison with leaving the money in the building society), payback period is infinity. I would have effectively been doing my Customers a disservice, and therefore could not proceed on ethical grounds.
Ah! The expression "to infinity and beyond" makes sense at last!
Sep 23, 2013 at 12:34 AM | michael hart
My dad had an electric car in the mid 90s (it was a light weight aluminium construction, not hybrid). It was meant to do about 50 mph and had a range of about 100 miles. He lived in Wales near Snowdonia. the car was great for popping into town (6 miles there and back) or even, on sunny days, for a short trip to a nearby restauraant or pub. It was such a novelty that whereever he went, someone would run out a power lead so he could charge the car (even in the town a power lead was often run out from a shop accross the pavement to his car, I guess before the days of H&S madness as this would now be ragrded as a hazard on the pavement). But charging at country pubs/ restaurants was necessary in the winter, especially at night.
The power drain for the heater, wipers and lights was noticable even after about 15 miles there was a noticable drop off in performance going up hills in these conditions so without a recharge for the return trip, the journey would have been very frustrating. Of course, the hilly conditions stressed the car so I guess around most cities which are relatively flat, they are an OK proposition for city driving, but as practical transport they are a pain in the neck.
Now I do not think that batteries have improved much since the mid 90s and this is why so many electric cars are hybrid. My dad went through a set of batteries about every 3 (may be 4) years and these cost several thousand pounds (obviously much more in today's prices) so this is an expensive maintenance issue.
I would say that for practical purposes the range of these cars is less than half that claimed by the manufacturer when you take into account a mix of night and wet weather driving, and in hilly environs even less than that.
The electric car would only be a practical option if they were more like a tram, ie., the battery is used from house to main highway and once on the main highway power is picked up from the highway itself (through induction/cabling whatever). Thus the battery would only be used for local trips in and around town and short trips/links on small roads/B roads and small A roads). All motorways and large A roads would need to be powered so that electric cars could use that power instead of their on board battery. in the absence of a game changer in battery design, that is the only way that they could have a practical range and could be used as a replacement for a petrol/diesel car.
I can't see the point of pushing this technology since the appeal is so limited.
PS. My dad always liked novelty and it was the novelty element (not the green issues) that attracted him to the electric car. it could not have been more different to his previous car (a Lotus Elan plus2S), and I personally could not have lived with the difference in performance, not to mention the sound. The sound of an Elan at full bore on a straight through exhauset is rousing especially when ricocheting off the mountains and stone walls, the electric car was all but silent, a slight whir from the gearbox, nothing much from the motor itself.
I've probably taken this slightly off track with my comment about forests in the EU. This was merely to point out that de-forestation like most things isn't a global problem in the sense that despite the impression given in the media in some parts of the world the trend has reversed, probably since those nations with cheap electricity stopped using wood for fuel. It should also be noted that the USA although not back to 19th century levels is showing an increasing area of woodland, what effect Drax will have who knows.
Whilst researching Canada (also positive) I came across this interesting site
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment/forest-cover-change.aspx
Anyway I'll apologise and put any further postings on Unthreaded
...but know someone who was quoted £15,000; oddly, he has now had it installed, and says that he has not had an electric bill since installation . Based upon my own (high) consumption and bills, it will be about 20 years before that sum is returned to him; lower consumption will take longer to return.
Sep 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM Radical Rodent
If what he says is true, how does he boil kettles, power his lighting etc after dark? Maybe he has had no bills because he sells so much power to the supplier, despite using mains electricity after dark?
SandyS (Sep 23, 2013 at 7:43 AM)
From the Conference Board of Canada:
Perhaps I am being a bit pedantic but, how can an area represent a proportion of a mass?
Martin A: that thought crossed my mind, too, but felt it impolite to mention.
p.s. I have no idea how I managed to repeat the quote; sorry, but my pedantry has its limits.
Has he done that thing they do in Spain where you connect the incoming mains supply to the outgoing "solar" feed and sell the power company's electricity back to it at a multiple of the cost?
Landmass refers to the total surface area of a geographical region or country
'...low-carbon power stations and WIND FARMS...'
Have any of them SEEN what wind is contributing today..?
94MW(that's less than 0.2% of demand - or 1.6% of installed/available capacity) and falling..
When WILL this unbelievable government wake up, stop spending OUR money on lining the pockets of landowners and developers, and get some proper power stations built - or has it got to go to 'lights out' before the politicians react..?
I do apologise, everyone - what did I say above..? 94MW..?
What a fibber I am - its 78MW....
Any time soon Gridwatch/NETA won't be able to measure it...
Any sign of embarrassment from the DECC or the government in general..? Nah...