oakwood

Thanks for that, very interesting.

We thought we had detected the effect of rising CO2 on continental-scale runoff (acting via plant physiology - increased water use efficiency) . This seemed to be stronger than the climate influence.

However it turns out the runoff dataset we used came under a lot of criticism (eg: from Kevin Trenberth's team and others). Need to do it again with more up-to-date data (but I still think the CO2 physiological effect needs to be considered)

To be fair, Dai and Trenberth also pointed out that large-scale river flow datasets are probably not suitable for detecting climate effects anyway because of contamination by direct anthropogenic effects.

A very difficult problem - but need to address it for informing long-term adaptation planning.

I'm sure you'll all want to listen to this (sarc).....I have a feeling this has been recycled from a few years ago.

Radio Times for Tuesday 19 July, 2.30 pm Radio 4

Afternoon Play: Getting to Zero

A drama documentary by Sara Woods that asks: have you got what it takes to get to zero carbon? In the documentary part, a panel of three experts from the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales -George Monbiot, Paul Allen and Peter Harper- set one average (fictional) family the task of eliminating their carbon footprint. The drama section follows the family's attempts to achieve zero carbon emissions, with interjections from the panel.

New study: Climate Change impacts not yet detectable in river flow data [central Europe]

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/248na6.pdf

Brownedoff:

I meant to say "We only have gas and coal for back-up" - finger trouble. I thought the oil-fired stations had been moth-balled.

For an analysis of the emissions resulting from back-up, see this:
http://www.clepair.net/windsecret.html

It looks like Australia is mobilising,

against it's Carbon Taxes, with their

“Convoy of no confidence”.
http://justgroundsonline.com/events/convoy-of-no-confidence-in

What an idea…!

At least they are conscious that they're being taken for suckers, and doing something about it.

What the chances of anything like this happening in Europe, where the stealthily introduction has largely avoided any popular consciousness.

But now fuel bills leap again, who knows...

Jul 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM | Phillip Bratby

Oil? How many of those are left operational?

There are 3 major oil fired power stations: Grain, Littlebrook and Fawley.

As of 31 May 2011, Grain and Littlebrook have not generated anything since 1 January 2011 and Fawley since 1 February 2011.

In fact, when assessing the effect on capacity due to LCPD, National Grid just ignore these three. So, when Huhne speaks of 20GW of old polluting power stations going out of service this decade, we are already well on the way because these three have a notional capacity of 3.5GW.

To return to your interatctions with the totally useless Hendrey, in some ways Sir Humphrey is correct in saying there is no answer, but for the wrong reasons.

The real reason, which they dare not utter, is that at the current level of penetration and output, the windmills' ups and downs are treated by Nataional Grid as a reduction in demand, so these wind farmers are in effect "stealing" the margin that NG have put in place every day to cover any problems with proper power stations (see the excellent "The Wind Farm Scam" by John Etherington).

Supposing on a given day, NG have put in place a margin of 4GW, then if this was called upon, but not because of proper power stations ringing up to declare a problem, then surely you could lay the cost of that provision at wind farmers. These costs could then be converted to MWh which could then be converted to tonnes of CO2, using an average rate of CO2 to MWh. Posibly.

National Grid have said that when penetration gets to 25GW (nameplate) wind capacity they will need 20GW of standby plant, or Capacity Mechanism as it to be called from now on. At that time the CO2 put out by this standby plant will be much easier to estimate. Possibly.

Sorry, should have included Breath Of Fresh Air

Brownedoff and Messenger:

It has taken me a year to get this far. I write a letter (snailmail) to my MP who forwards it to the relevant minister. I then get an answer signed by the minister (written by Sir Humphrey) via my MP. It usually takes about 3 months per go.

The truth is they don't know the effect of back-up on CO2 emissions. They know that if they tried to analyse it they would likely get the answer that for both coal and gas, the effect of wind turbines including the effect of back-up, is a net increase in emissions. If they don't analyse it, then they can show that they are meeting the EU renewables energy targets (installed - except they won't meet them), but if they did analyse it, they would show that the CO2 emissions reductions targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 will never be met. So they don't do the analysis and there is no way I will get an answer from Hendry.

Yes Phillip an non answer, but as Messenger suggests a follow up question of what the 4 different costs would be may shine some light.

CERN chief forbids “interpretation” of CLOUD results

The results must be favourable for Svensmark or there would be no such anxiety about them.

CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.

https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%e2%80%9cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%e2%80%9d/

I feel sure there will be some honest scientists who feel unconstrained by this strange edict?