Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


BH - hope you had a good break. Two things you may have missed -

and Richard Klein has been responding to one of Hilary's posts -

Aug 1, 2011 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Challenge to local councils: let's hear your answer to these questions.

Aug 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

BBD, further to prior postings on the electric cars, I don't see much hope for the second hand market!

Nissan has admitted that owners of a Leaf, which costs £26,000 after the government grant, may need to replace the battery after a few years, depending on how it has been treated, The Times reported.

The battery’s capacity can decrease significantly if the owner repeatedly uses a fast-charge point.

Andy Palmer, Nissan GB’s senior vice-president, told the paper that the lithium ion battery is made up of 48 modules. He said that each would cost £404 to replace, making £19,392 for the entire battery pack. He said that most owners would not need a new battery for at least ten years because electric vehicles should mainly be used for short journeys.

Aug 1, 2011 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

re Professor Kelly's puzzlement and the IPCC "distortions"'
There is an interesting parallel to be drawn with the Summary for Policymakers. At the end of the Second Vatican Council which, as you may know, caused considerable upheaval in the Catholic Church, much of the task of formalising the Council Fathers' decisions was inevitably left to the periti (ie experts) who acted as advisors. There is evidence that a number of these ensured that radical ideas which had not been approved by the Bishops found their way into the final documents. The English Cardinal Heenan was certainly on record as saying that some things appeared that he had no knowledge of either being approved or even being discussed.
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers likewise provides "advisors", many of whom are activists from organisarions like WWF, Greenpeace, and similar, with the opportunity to influence what the politicians are going to read, and since it is an IPCC rule (or certainly was for AR4) that the SfP comes first and the actual papers (which must not contradict the science as set down in the SfP) come later, the stage is set for all sorts of malpractice.
Even RealClimate for all its put-downs of those who dare challenge the true faith is less dogmatic than the received wisdom has it. Most published papers do make proper reference to doubts and uncertainties. But the real gift to sceptics, especially the unthinking sort, comes when lead authors are passing judgment on their own work without any check or balance or when Trenberth sets himself up as a hurricane expert (which he isn't) and in effect boots the true expert overboard, presumably because he is going to come up with the "wrong" answer.

Aug 1, 2011 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Without that equation you are making an assertion.
That was my point, geronimo. If you check you'll see that what you quoted was me drawing a conclusion from a posting by BBD.
Since we don't actually "know" the extent to which the warming that has followed the LIA is natural we cannot "know" what amount to attribute to other causes. If our climatologists could establish the processes which led from the Dark Age cool period to the MWP then we might be better placed to say x% or y% of warming is unaccounted for and we would probably then be better placed to determine what is/are the likely cause(s).
However, there is one thing we do know and that is that the climatologists that get all the publicity are certainly not going to use their data for any such purpose and we know why!

I would love to have the scientific knowledge to answer your questions. I suspect you know that I don't. But I refer you to the answer I just gave geronimo above. Do we know what processes were involved in the transition between the various climate optima of the last (say) 3,000 years and the intervening cool periods? What was the length of these transitions? What were the temperature differences? Is the current warm period fundamentally different in some way from those that have preceded it?
Once we have answers to those questions we can consider the extent to which something other than natural causes are at work.
At the moment I see no temperatures outwith normal variation in spite of efforts on parts of the climate science community to, for example, "get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period". Neither (given a 60-year cycle which peaked ~1940 and ~1880) do I yet see any reason to suppose that the current pause in warming is not a precursor to a decline which will take us back to the 70s. Come back to me in 10 years time and I'll happily admit it if I'm wrong.
On that basis I am happy to agree with your contention that "energy is accumulating in the climate system" and add "so what?"
As a PS I would agree that it would be surprising if there is not some anthropogenic effect on climate over the last five centuries given the increase in population and technological changes over that time. The trick is working out what they are, how serious they are, and the extent of nature's ability to compensate for any that "she's not keen on". (Forgive the anthropomorphic shorthand!)

Aug 1, 2011 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

An amusing little item ...

Climate Change and Wine: The Death of Rioja and Aussie Shiraz?

Aug 1, 2011 at 9:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterAJC


Energy is accumulating in the climate system - warming it. Do we agree on this?

- Show some (any) evidence that the 'rebound' from the LIA actually persisted significantly into the C20th.Where is the body of work that identifies this climate behaviour and quantifies its duration?

Aug 1, 2011 at 12:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

We do know that the MWA was not caused by CO2.
We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2.
There seem to be a large number of holes in that logic or am I missing something important?

There are no holes in this logic. Or why not point to them?

Post hoc non ergo propter hoc mainly, BBD.
We are pretty convinced that CO2 did not cause the Roman Warm Period or the Mediaeval Warm Period and we don't know how much of the lift out of the LIA is natural. So it seems a remarkable leap from that to "we know CO2 is causing the 20th century warming".
That's about it.
Except that since we have fairly good evidence that at least the last two Warm Periods (and possibly previous ones) were not caused by CO2, there is therefore a heavy burden of proof on those who see CO2 as the villain to come up with evidence -- and pretty solid evidence at that.

Jul 31, 2011 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

@BBD: "We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2.
There seem to be a large number of holes in that logic or am I missing something important?

There are no holes in this logic. Or why not point to them?"

Is that all of recent warmind caused by CO2? Because if that's what your saying theres a hole as big as the Mersey Tunnel in the logic. I don't know of anyone who attributes all the warming to human induced CO2 in the atmosphere, not even the IPCC, who claim that around 50% of the warming can be attributed to natural causes and because CO2 has risen it must be CO2 that's caused the other 50% That may be true, but if we are to tax ourselves out of our industrial society, where unprecedented prosperity exists for all our people, I'd like to see a bit more skin on the bones of that theory.

Jul 31, 2011 at 8:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

@Mike Jackson: "So we don't know how much of the recent warming is due to rebound from the Little Ice Age.
We do know that the MWA was not caused by CO2.
We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2"

We don't know that the recent warming was caused by CO2, although it may have been. It is not science to say A is rising, B is rising, then A causes B to rise. It's a good starting point, but then, in normal science and engineering you have to produce a function which describes the relationship so that you can observe and test your theory. Without that equation you are making an assertion. There is no such equation because the system is too complex to make one. It probably true that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause heat to be retained but after billions of dollars have been given to climate scientists to find the cause they haven't been able to come up with an equation that allows us to test this assumption.

For the record I personally believe that increase CO2 will increase temperature, but I'm not sure. I don't believe that an increase of 1, 2, 3 or 4C will be disastrous, and I don't believe anyone in the climate science community has any more ability to predict the future than "Madam Belladonna" at the fairground can predict the future of individuals. That's what we're up against. Richard Betts has come onto this blog, and he's as modest as the Team were in their original papers about what they know and what the uncertainties are, but as Prof. Kelly's comments show he believed that the IPCC distorted the rather more modest statements in the published papers. Presumably he was unaware that the characters showing modesty in their published papers were one and the same characters who forecast doom and catastrophe in the IPCC report:

"Up to and throughout this exercise, I have remained puzzled how the real humility of the scientists in this area, as evident in their papers, including all these here, and the talks I have heard them give, is morphed into statements of confidence at the 95% level for public consumption through the IPCC process. This does not happen in other subjects of equal importance to humanity, e.g. energy futures or environmental degradation or resource depletion. I can only think it is the 'authority' appropriated by the IPCC itself that is the root cause."

Jul 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>