Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > It's all gone quiet

Apart from the odd scare story on the BBC, there doesn't seem to be much going on in the world of AGW at the moment. I always get worried by a lull, on the Beeb it used to mean they were gathering their forces for a week long orgy of alarm. Most of the BH and WUWT posts in recent weeks have been of the "he said she said" category - even Steve McI's last post (3 weeks ago!) was a "he said she said" post about Lew.

I don't really count Balcombe as climate-related - it's the usual rent-a-rabble who would come out to the building of a wendy-house of they thought they could avoid showering and live in a tree for a week. I don't perceive the public see it as climate-related either - it's more the usual anti-capitalism occupy drivel, and people are bored of that, despite the best efforts of the Guardian/BBC axis of evil to whip it up. Of course people don't like industrial mining near their homes. They don't like windmills either. But they do like electricity. Once educated about the comparative on-going disruption of a fraccing operation and say, oh I don't know, a wind farm, I'm sure they'd choose one rather than the other.

So what's the next big thing going to be? IPCC AR5 will be absolutely nothing, is my prediction. We've already seen it, and it's more of the same. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, after all.

As I said, nervous. The alarmists are on the back foot. We are winning - compare now with the conversations we were having here 2 or 3 years ago. The change has been slow, but it has been going in our direction. But cornered rats are dangerous, and I'm nervous. They are furiously working on something, I feel it in my bones. If I can add a late prediction to my 2013 predictions list is that there will be one more coordinated full-scale assault by the usual suspects before the year-end.

It will be pointless, of course. Nature wins.

Aug 23, 2013 at 8:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

There are some moves to bring both sides together in this great debate.
A letter to the Daily Telegraph suggests putting a windmill onto each fracking well-head.

Aug 23, 2013 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

Alan: Why should the birds have to suffer that?

Aug 23, 2013 at 9:02 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Do I have to be the voice of reason here? Gently rotating windmills powered by excess devil farts could offer perfect roosting and nesting habitats for all the rock doves that currently infest London. My great uncle already has a patent leather design with just two moving parts and I helped with all the floating point calcs. We are only limited by our imaginations, man.

Aug 23, 2013 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

And I thought I believed in innovation. I take it all back :)

Aug 23, 2013 at 9:40 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Are we now in a Western? - "I don't like it, Sarge. It's too quiet..."

Look out for the arrows!

Aug 23, 2013 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Well, if you can't see Chuck Norris, he's behind you.

Aug 23, 2013 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Probably everybody's waiting for AR5.
Also it's the summer holiday. What used to be called the "silly season" — you used to get stories in the press about people going off on silly escapades in places like darkest Sussex or having their tap water turn green.
Those were the days ...

Aug 23, 2013 at 12:21 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

No BBC Climate Scareporn story of the day, to keep banging the message home ? Not possible ! - goes to BBC SCi-Envi news page :
" 23 August 2013 Last updated at 06:19
Coastal wildlife species 'at risk due to climate change'

UK coastal species such as puffins and little terns could be "seriously affected" by erosion and climate change, the National Trust has said. ... "
..nice fluffy photo : "Puffins on the Farne Islands There are now just under 40,000 pairs of nesting puffins on the Farne Islands"

..there own hype is crushed by the linkbar on the same page
Farne puffin numbers show increase
Adapting to climate change at sea
High tide woes for nesting terns
What you mean is on the main news there is no banging on Climate scareporn story ..we could run a countdown clock ..would it reach 100 or 150 hours ?

- ah of course BBC are busy preparing their "Arctic will be Ice-free by 2013" prediction coming true story WUWT is running a a countdown clock on this story (for September 22nd)

Aug 23, 2013 at 12:32 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

BBC radio station 5Live to operate only on renewables on Energy Day 5 September
"Renewable energy will power BBC’s live news and sport radio station 5Live on Energy Day on 5 September in Manchester, England, to highlight concerns over how the UK will meet binding climate targets in the coming years. "

they think their entire operation is 2 amps ? "5Live has contingency plans in place, just in case the renewable energy sources fail to deliver the estimated 2 amps of power the station needs to remain operational." ... I bet they mean KiloAmps 2000Amps

Aug 23, 2013 at 2:54 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

stewgreen: so, they are admitting that renewable energy is not to be trusted, no matter how "small" the requirement. Curious that they are so for the idea...

Aug 23, 2013 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

And let us not forget the 150,000+ gannets on the Bass Rock.
I can't help feeling that any journalist worth his/her salt faced with that glib factoid (can I invent the word 'guessoid'?) would ask the question "when will this be?"

Aug 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Most of us who follow BH are sceptical, don't know, or are luke warmers.

If there is a persuasive scientific argument, we are prepared to believe that water vapour feedback is negative and inversely proportional to atmospheric temperature.

We would be prepared to believe that when the atmosphere heats up in the tropics, cloud formation kicks in to block solar radiance through albedo.

We may even be prepared to believe, given some results, that GHG warming is countered by convection followed by a greater proportion of DLWR going to space resulting in heat loss.

Some of us may even be capable of (sacrilege!) believing that the GHG theory is flawed when applied to an open system like our atmosphere.

In other words, we have open minds and don't hold any aspect of climate science as indisputable truth. We are happy to consider the unthinkable if new evidence points that way.

Increasingly, I am becoming convinced that climate scientists do not have the ability to have an open mind in this way. I do not intend to belittle them by that statement, I think they have some beliefs that were ingrained when they were learning the basics. Today, some of these beliefs are "a given" and not up for negotiation or a change of mind.

The rest of us are flexible and just seek the truth. Climate scientists seem to either stick bullishly to their models or they agonise over why the models don't work, - but always, it appears, within a much more limited belief framework.

So what did they learn as gospel when they were fresh faced and innocent , which today should be thrown under a bus?

Don't ask me, I didn't train as a climate scientist.

Aug 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Stewgreen, I'd guess they are talking about the energy used for the studio electronics in the narrowest possible sense, conveniently forgetting about the distribution and transmission network.

Or it could be that the technical ignorance so coveted and celebrated by media luvvies means that they haven't a clue about the difference between amps and kiloamps.

Aug 23, 2013 at 8:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterNW

So what did they learn as gospel when they were fresh faced and innocent , which today should be thrown under a bus?

Don't ask me, I didn't train as a climate scientist.
Aug 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

"So what did they learn as gospel...?"

"Carbon dioxide traps heat"

[quote from Dr Kate Willetts, Met Office climate scientist, UEA Phd - video formerly on "My Climate and Me"]

Aug 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

If it's power, it's not amps, it's watts (or more likely kilowatts)...

Aug 24, 2013 at 12:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterosseo

"Carbon dioxide traps heat". Are you bothered by the concept? It's not new.

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commenter1001

Not new, 1001; just wrong.
We've moved beyond that hyper-simplistic explanation and there are plenty of threads on this site and elsewhere that explain why.

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

world of bizarre coincidences
..EnoughI switched off Bishop Hill, picked up Radio Times : Centre pullout WILDLIFE SOS... photo on the back PUFFIN

..sub-headline .ANIMALS IN CRISIS
My guess is clueless townies panicking ...we know nature is not static but varies hugely over time, bound to be some animals at low numbers and others at high numbers. I note they don't mention this decades need to cull dear ..due to over population.
The animal below puffin is the hare ..Well we see hares from the living room window a few times a week and this is a village housing estate backing onto industrial agriculture ..hardly a national park.

The website is not too panicky

Aug 24, 2013 at 3:32 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Schrodinger's Cat

I would suggest that although people on BH started their "journey" with an open mind, many have seen so much evidence over the years that they now hold a view that although not set in stone, would take a lot of shifting ^.^
People who have followed this since Steve McIintyre got his claws into the Hockey Stick, followed it through Climategate and read Donna Lafromboise's book on the IPCC (to name but a few issues) will not easily be persuaded of the good intentions of or by evidence presented by, the opposition.

Aug 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM | Registered CommenterDung

I was struck by how Richard Lindzen dealt with the question of whether he was open-minded, when asked whether there was any evidence that would change his mind about the seriousness of man-made global warming, in a TV debate not too long ago. He replied at once and without hesitation that of course there was. He went on the give some examples of the kind of data that could be captured by satellites in the future that would change his mind. I already admired the guy but that has stayed with me. True scientist.

Aug 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Aug 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM | Martin A
"So what did they learn as gospel...?"

"Carbon dioxide traps heat"

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:10 PM | 1001
"Carbon dioxide traps heat". Are you bothered by the concept?
It's not new.

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM | Mike Jackson
Not new, 1001; just wrong. We've moved beyond that hyper-
simplistic explanation and there are plenty of threads on this
site and elsewhere that explain why.

You have moved beyond basic physics - what does that mean? You and Martin-A don't think CO2 traps heat in the way that has been understood for a century? Or what? I don't understand whether you think the 'greenhouse' action of CO2 should not be taught as a fact or just that you think it doesn't hold the
answer to life the universe and everything (which nobody would dispute).

Aug 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered Commenter1001

We know and accept, most of us, that CO2 absorbs radiation and re-emits it. That does not amount to trapping heat per se, unless a few more steps are filled in. Note that the amount of energy in the system stays constant. Now, whether some heat gets eventually trapped is a matter of debate. Maybe it does. But CO2 does not trap heat.

Aug 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

I suspect 1001 = Vangel

Aug 24, 2013 at 6:26 PM | Registered CommenterDung

1001 - did you study the physics of radiation as part of your education? At the level taught in a physics or engineering degree course, for example?

Aug 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A