Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

From Hansard this evening

Energy: Climate Change House of Lords

Motion to Take Note

3.53 pm

Moved By Lord Marland......

4.15 pm

Lord Teverson:

To me, energy saving is not just a virtuous circle; it is a virtuous spiral. Let me explain why. We have estimates from Ofgem that we need £230 billion-worth of investment in our generating and electricity supply industry over the next few years to meet our energy gap. It is obvious that the more we meet our energy savings targets and go beyond them, the less we need of that investment. In terms of energy savings, we have the planning system, which was mentioned earlier. We do not have to ask for planning permission for energy saving. It can go ahead without delays. In fact, energy saving is one of the ways in which we can meet targets without the great changes that we need otherwise.

Let me take one or two other issues. One of the ironies about carbon leakage is that, although we are about to meet our Kyoto targets at the end of 2012, as measured by carbon production, we will increase our carbon consumption by some 19 per cent over that time in comparison with 1990 levels. By saving energy, we do not have that conflict; indeed, we reduce it. On renewables, I am in favour of them, but we have a problem with intermittence in wind power. Yet with energy saving, we have a completely non-intermittent way of meeting our energy requirements.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/10.htm

I guess I must of missed the '£230 billion-worth of investment in our generating and electricity supply industry over the next few years to meet our energy gap' in the governments appraisal of our future budgetry requirements. But to try and reach that figure by energy effiency savings is going to be crippling to industry over the next few years.

Nov 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

I really liked this Alex Cull comment on the Guardian article about the Fate of the World computer game.

"As a card-carrying evil Denialist, I would like to suggest a few exciting add-ons and extra mini-games for Fate of the World, which I wouldn't mind spending some of my ill-gotten oil industry money on.

Terminal Turbine Trouble: In charge of DECC, you have unlimited green ambitions but a limited budget. See how many thousands of these underperforming steel and concrete behemoths you can splash out on, before all the money has vanished and the lights go out!

Carbon Casino: Become a carbon trading wheeler and dealer - use all your wiles to enrich yourself with no tangible result to the environment and see how many millions you can amass before the carbon market falls through the floor or Interpol come knocking, whichever happens first!

Jolly Hockey Sticks: Here's a game all the family can enjoy. Using the game's red-noise generating algorithm, see if you can beat all your family and friends to be the first to create a hockey-stick shaped graph!

Klimate Kop Kidz: It's Earth Hour 2012 and all the grown-ups ("Groans") on your block are resistant to the idea, being addicted to their creature comforts and electric lights. Use all your powers of cajoling, pressurising, conniving and outright threats and menaces to see if you can get 100% compliance this year!

Cannibal Zombie Thermogeddon: It's 2030 and Climate Chaos is worse than we thought! As president of a designated Earth Lifeboat nation in the Arctic Circle, fight off invading hordes of malarial, cannibal zombie climate refugees, and see if the human race can survive until 2031!

Ten-Ten Red Button Blast-o-Rama: Use your secret Red Button weapon to gain points in this fast-moving and violent game (not for under 15s). Explode all the pesky climate change deniers and delayers first, then all your friends and colleagues who are just a little too slow to comply! You're up against the clock - but no pressure!

Game on!"

Nov 2, 2010 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

I have a Guest Post on Watts Up

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/02/who-are-the-climate-fools-climate-fools-day/#comment-521479

Nov 2, 2010 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Their Lordships are debating energy policy and climate change this afternoon.

http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#/calendar/Lords/MainChamber/2010/11/2/events.html

Nov 2, 2010 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

Good post over at Pielke Jr's on the predictive power of Paul the (recently deceased) octopus.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-paul-rip-have-skill.html

It raises some interesting quesions about predictions and the blinkers used in selecting them.

A while back it was hinted that RP Jr was going to be giving a talk in London this month, anyone know if it's on, and where/when?

Nov 2, 2010 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Abrupt shifts in climate can occur over much shorter timescales. Greenland ice cores record that during the last glacial stage (100,000 – 11,500 years ago) the temperature there alternately warmed and cooled several times by more than 10ºC 26,27. This was accompanied by major climate change around the northern hemisphere, felt particularly strongly in the North Atlantic region. Each warm and cold episode took just a few decades to develop and lasted for a few hundred years. The climate system in those glacial times was clearly unstable and liable to switch rapidly with little warning between two contrasting states. These changes were almost certainly caused by changes in the way the oceans transported heat between the hemispheres.

Does that mean that considered geological opinion is that the climate is normally in a stable state?

Nov 1, 2010 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

The Geol Soc statement is on balance a great disappointment. A bit of a curates egg. Initially there seemed to be reasonable discussion of the dramatic natural swings of climate in the geological record. It demonstates the transience of climate stability that is the natural state of the planet. I had hoped that it would truthfully stess the complexity of past influences on climate, and the continuing uncertainty both of past drivers, and the role of the potency, or lack of, the influencial significance of varying CO2 atmospheric concentrations. That at the present state of the art there is a heated ongoing controversy in the scientific community concerning the feedback mechanism. However the statement deteriorated into impugning CO2 at every available opportunity, based on opinion rather than hard evidence.

Nov 1, 2010 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

The Geol Soc Climate Change Statement is out. Have not yet had a chance to digest it

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/climatechange

Nov 1, 2010 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Crimes against humanity"

"Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/01/climate-science-disinformation-crime

Nov 1, 2010 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Central England air temperatures from 1659 to present:

Annual average temp in Celcius since 2000

2000 10.3
2001 9.93
2002 10.6
2003 10.5
2004 10.48
2005 10.44
2006 10.82
2007 10.48
2008 9.96
2009 10.11
2010 ????

Bets now being taken with two months to go, will it be higher than 2009, will it be lower?

My best guess will be 9.5 +- 0.2 degrees celsius the lowest since 1996 which was 9.2.

Nov 1, 2010 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

PostCreate a New Post

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