date: Fri Sep 25 10:53:32 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: [Fwd: CCNet: The Sun Could Be Heading Into A Period of
to: santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley
Ben, Tom,
Seen this one - we picked it up several days ago.
Michaels won't still have his 9 Track mag Tape with all the pressure data on!
So much else wrong with this piece. CRU wasn't set up to develop the global temp record
etc.
I have stopped sending data out to anybody after the stupid comment on Climate Audit by
Peter Webster.
We've had over 60 FOI requests for data. They are varied - many can be answered by telling
people to read the literature. We're refusing those for the data. We're going to send an
email to all NMSs thru MOHC and then release those where countries are happy for us to do
so.
It is just a pain having to respond to them - someone else at UEA does this though.
I did send one of the requests to Myles as it was from one of his fellow profs in Physics
at Oxford! Myles knows him well and he has never talked about climate with Myles - or
expressed any views. Myles can't understand why he's getting his climate education from
Climate Audit and not from colleagues in his own dept!
This annoys me too. I'd read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to
another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of First
Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent
them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying
things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!
Alan is retiring at the end of this year....thankfully.
Phil
At 00:54 25/09/2009, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Tom,
This is a vicious and unjustified attack - not only on Phil, but also on you and on CRU.
Please let me know if there's any way I can help in responding to Michaels. I'll do
anything I can.
Cheers,
Ben
Tom Wigley wrote:
See the item by Pat Michaels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
CCNet: The Sun Could Be Heading Into A Period of Extended Calm
From:
"Peiser, Benny"
Date:
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:26:30 +0100
To:
"cambridge-conference"
To:
"cambridge-conference"
CCNet 149/2009 24 September 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars
>
THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM
-------------------------------------------------------
Researchers in the US may have discovered further evidence that the Sun is heading
towards an extended period of quiet activity, the like of which has not been seen since
the 17th century. The impact this may have on climate is poorly understood but it would
be good news for satellite communications, which would continue to avoid the harsher
impacts of space weather. --James Dacey, Physics World, 23 September 2009
Estonia and Poland have scored deeply significant wins in their battle with the EU over
carbon quotas. In a decision that threatens to scupper Europe's cap and trade scheme,
the Court of First Instance annulled the European Commission's decision to lower the
carbon emission quotas of both countries.
--EurActiv, 23 September 2009
The Europe-wide carbon trading market suffered a severe blow yesterday when a European
court issued a ruling that will weaken carbon prices and undermine efforts by the
European Commission to curb carbon emissions further. The decision is expected to weaken
prices in Europeâs troubled carbon market and undermine efforts by the Commission to
impose a stricter regime on carbon polluters.
--Carl Mortished, The Times, 24 September 2009
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy
debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this
point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be
spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal
in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed
to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
--Patrick J. Michaels, National Review Online, 23 September 2009
Viewed macroscopically, environmentalism is usurping state power. Entirely for
self-aggrandizement an oligarchic party is imposing a policy platform. Environmentalism
isn't about mutant tadpoles and melting ice-burgs. Its about economic containment. It's
an oligarchy bringing uppity capitalists to heel. This is a repeat performance. A
classic rendition was given at Athens 400 BC.
--William Kay, Environmentalism 400 BC
(1) THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM
James Dacey, Physics World, 23 September 2009
(2) TWO EQUINOX SUNSPOTS
Nancy Atkinson, Universe Today, 23 September 2009
(3) COURT DECISION THREATENS TO UNRAVEL EUROPE'S CARBON MARKET
EurActiv, 23 September 2009
(4) EUROPEAN CARBON TRADING MARKET TAKES HIT (YET AGAIN)
Carl Mortished, The Times, 24 September 2009
(5) YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP: UK FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CONCERNED ABOUT GREEN FUNDING
CUTS
Tom Young, BusinessGreen, 24 September 2009
(6) U.S. SENATORS MOVE TO REIN IN EPA WHILE OBAMA TALKS TOUGH ON CLIMATE
Stephen Power, WSJ Environmental Capital, 23 September 2009
(7) STUDY REFUTES CONNECTION OF GLOBAL WARMING AND STORM INTENSITY
South Carolina Network, 23 September 2009
(8) OPINION: THE DOG ATE GLOBAL WARMING
Patrick J. Michaels, National Review Online, 23 September 2009
(9) CO2 TRACKING TEMPERATURE DURING PERIODS OF COOLING
Julian Parker
(10) PLATO AND THE ANCIENT ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISM
William Kay
(11) RE: GLOBAL WARMING SUITS ARE A HARD SELL, ATTORNEY ADVISES
Colin Hunt
(12) I THINK PEAK OIL IS DEAD
Mark Lawson
(13) SPACE TRAVEL MATHS
Stephen Ashworth
(14) SPACE TRAVEL MYTHS
Robert Redelmeier
(15) RE: HUMAN PROGRESS IS A (POSSIBLE) CALAMITY
Mark Duchamp
(16) ORCHESTRATING VOLUNTARY CURBS ON REPRODUCTION DEMOCRATICCALLY
Peter Salonius
(17) DICTATORSHIPS, POPULATION AND PEAK OIL
Richard Wakefield
==============
(1) THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM
Physics World, 23 September 2009 <[1]http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40456>
James Dacey
Researchers in the US may have discovered further evidence that the Sun is heading
towards an extended period of quiet activity, the like of which has not been seen since
the 17th century. The impact this may have on climate is poorly understood but it would
be good news for satellite communications, which would continue to avoid the harsher
impacts of space weather.
Scientists have long known that the Sun's magnetic activity varies over a cycle of
approximately 11 years. Greater magnetic activity leads to more "sunspots", or darker
patches visible on the solar surface. These sunspots are regions where the magnetic
field lines have become twisted due to differential rotation in the outer layers of the
Sun.
Particularly violent sunspots can result in the sudden release of magnetic energy in the
form of solar flares, which cause the outpouring of protons and electrons into space.
Some of these particles can reach the Van Allen radiation belt of Earth the outer
region of Earth's own mmagnetic field where they are accelerated to speeds approaching
the speed of light. During the solar maxima, when sunspot numbers are at their peak, the
abundance of particles shooting around in the radiation belt can become a real hazard to
the satellites that reside there.
Extended calm
We were expecting to reach the next solar maxima around 201120012. However, space
weather experts have been surprised over the past few years to report very few signs
that the number of sunspots has been picking up since the last solar minimum in 2006.
This has prompted some space scientists to forecast that we are heading towards another
prolonged spell of quiet sunspot activity, the last of which was observed between 1645
and 1715 in a period called the "Maunder Minimum".
In this latest research, Sarah Gibson at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) in Colorado and her colleagues focused on another process by which the Sun
discharges energy. They looked at the lower-energy streams of plasma that carry protons
and electrons towards the Earth at a steadier rate than the storms associated with
sunspots. Scientists had previously thought that these streams largely disappeared
during periods of quiet sunspot activity.
The researchers found that the Sun's effect on the Van Allen radiation belt was three
times greater in 2008 than the effect recorded in 1996 during the previous solar
minimum. The result comes as a surprise given that the current solar minimum has fewer
sunspots than any minimum of the past 75 years.
Strength a sign of weakness
Gibson told physicsworld.com that it could be the current "weakness of the Sun" that
could account for the strengthened solar streams. This is because during solar maxima,
when sunspots appear in abundance, the strong solar magnetic field acts to contain the
solar streams. However, when sunspot activity is very quiet, this is a sign that the
field is significantly weakened and this can allow stronger solar streams to escape
through "coronal holes". "The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there
are virtually no sunspots," she said.
The particularly strong solar streams of 2008 could, according to Gibson, be another
sign that the Sun is in an unusually weak state at the moment. The study also raises
questions about how the streams may have affected Earth in the past when the Sun went
through extended periods of low sunspot activity. Steven Schwartz, a space and
atmospheric physicist at Imperial College in London agrees that space weather and
climate models could benefit from an improved understanding of the Sun's magnetic
activity and its impact on Earth. "This research shows that while we know a lot about
the Sun and its impact on the Earth, there are still important elements we don't really
understand yet," he said.
In terms of day-to-day threats to satellites from space weather, these latest findings
could be good news for satellite communication companies that feared that they may have
"had it too good" in recent years. As the space weather conditions for satellites were
assumed to be glorious, there had been little assurance that the technology could still
function properly as conditions get harsher when we move towards the next solar maximum.
"This technology managed to pull through the peak in this solar stream, which is now
subsiding, so it should be okay as solar flare activity increases," said Doug Biesecker,
a space weather scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Copyright 2009, physicsworld.com
==========
(2) TWO EQUINOX SUNSPOTS
Universe Today, 23 September 2009
<[2]http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/23/two-equinox-sunspots/>
by Nancy Atkinson
Two sunspots appeared on old Sol yesterday just as Earth's orbit ushered in the Autumnal
Equinox. Two sunspots showing up at once hasn't happened in more than a year, and over
80% of the days in 2009 have been "sunspotless" during this deepest solar minimum in a
century. Spaceweather.com had a great picture, below, of the first sunspot that
appeared, #1026, taken by astrophotographer Peter Lawrence. Lawrence said there was a
lot going on around the new sunspot. "The spot's dark core is surrounded by active
fibrils and a swirling magnetic filament that gives the region a nice 3D appearance."
Check out [3]www.Spaceweather.com for more (and new images) of the new sunspots.
===========
(3) COURT DECISION THREATENS TO UNRAVEL EUROPE'S CARBON MARKET
EurActiv, 23 September 2009
<[4]http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/court-decision-threatens-unravel-europe-ca
rbon-market/article-185715?Ref=RSS>
Estonia and Poland have scored deeply significant wins in their battle with the EU over
carbon quotas. In a decision that threatens to scupper Europe's cap and trade scheme,
the Court of First Instance annulled the European Commission's decision to lower the
carbon emission quotas of both countries.
The court said setting carbon limits is a matter for member states rather than the EU.
The ruling could force the European Commission to review its quotas and undermine the
fledgling carbon market.
Estonia and Poland have been fighting for more generous national caps on industrial
carbon emissions, arguing that their industry would be hamstrung under the EU scheme.
A Commission spokesperson said the EU executive would consider appealing the decision,
which was described as "extremely disappointing". An appeal process could take more than
a year.
Under the scheme countries get a certain allowance of carbon emissions rights which they
apply to industry, such as power plants and steel mills.
"The Commission exceeded its powers" by imposing a ceiling on carbon emissions, said the
EU Court of First Instance, Europe's second highest court, in its statement.
Poland, Estonia and other East European countries argued that the Commission had
unfairly trimmed their quotas, or national allocation plans (NAPs), under the second
trading phase of the scheme from 2008-12.
Concern for future of carbon market
The news sparked concern among EU carbon market participants that the ruling, if upheld,
could cause an unravelling of the market, which depends on a tight cap on emissions.
If their cap is raised, as Poland and Estonia want, the price of EU allowances (EUAs)
could tumble. In addition, several more countries have objected to their quotas,
including Czech, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania.
"It is certainly a big issue as far as other outstanding national allocation plan
decisions are concerned," said Graham Stuart, partner at the law firm Baker & McKenzie.
Prices for EUAs were down 3.9% at 13.20 euros ($19.54) a tonnee in the wake of the
decisison. "It's bearish news. It sets a precedent for other countries," Reuters quotes
one trader as saying.
The Commission had cut by 27% Poland's original request for 284.6 million tonnes of EUAs
annually from 2008-12, and had cut Estonia's requested quota by 48%.
EU member states alone had the power to take final decisions fixing the quota, the court
said on Wednesday. The Commission only had powers to review the quotas, and was wrong to
dismiss these solely on the grounds of unreliable data, it added.
Copyright 2009, EurActiv
===========
(4) EUROPEAN CARBON TRADING MARKET TAKES HIT (YET AGAIN)
The Times, 24 September 2009
<[5]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6846674.ece>
Carl Mortished, World Business Editor The Europe-wide carbon trading market suffered a
severe blow yesterday when a European court issued a ruling that will weaken carbon
prices and undermine efforts by the European Commission to curb carbon emissions
further.
In a landmark decision, the European Court of First Instance ruled in favour of an
appeal by Poland and Estonia for the right to be more generous in granting carbon
emission allowances. In its surprise annulment of a Commission decision to cut the
carbon quotas of the two countries, the court said: âThe Commission exceeded its
powers.â
The decision is expected to weaken prices in Europeâs troubled carbon market and
undermine efforts by the Commission to impose a stricter regime on carbon polluters.
The court said that the Commission had no right to impose a lower cap on the emissions
of Estonia and Poland when it rejected the national allocation plans (NAPs) submitted by
the two countries.
Under Europeâs Emissions Trading System (ETS), each state submits a plan setting out how
many carbon allowances (EUAs) it will issue to industry each year.
The courtâs ruling astounded carbon traders in Europe yesterday and the price of EUAs
traded on the ETS fell 60 cents a tonne before recovering to 13.40 a tonne.
>
Carbon traders said that there was a risk of a further 50 million tonnes in EUAs coming
on to the market as the two countries exploited the courtâs ruling against the
Commissionâs authority.
âIt means two things possibly more allowances in the market and more uncertainty,â
Emmanuel Fages, a carbon analyst with Société Générale, the investment bank, said.
âItâs another blow because people will say the market doesnât work.â
FULL STORY at <[6]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6846674.ece>
============
(5) YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP: UK FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CONCERNED ABOUT GREEN FUNDING
CUTS
BusinessGreen, 24 September 2009
<[7]http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2250011/industry-warns-goverment-cc
s>
Tom Young,
The carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry has expressed grave concerns at reports
the government is considering scaling back its £10bn plan to fund a series of CCS
demonstration plants in the UK as part of its efforts to restore health to the public
finances.
The Guardian reported yesterday that Treasury officials have warned that the government
plan to fund the development of up to four CCS plants could be cut as a result of
renewed spending constraints.
Luke Warren, International Policy Executive at the Carbon Capture and Storage
Association, warned that any such cuts could jeopardise both the UK carbon emission
targets and the health of the country's emerging CCS industry.
"If these report are true they make for dismal reading," he said. "The UK government has
been a leader on CCS but it is now in danger of falling behind the pack in the race to
develop this crucial technology."
The government is officially committed to funding one plant entirely through its CCS
competition an award expected to be worth around £1bn.
In addition, earlier this year climate change secretary Ed Miliband said the government
would fund between one and three further CCS plants and that no coal power plant would
be given the go-ahead in the UK without CCS attached.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change attempted to dopwnplay the
reports insistig there had been no official change to the government's CCS funding
plans.
"The UK has set out bold proposals for coal and CCS they are a world first and our
ambitions remain firm," she said. "We're determined to drive the development of CCS as
part of the transition to a low carbon economy."
However, industry sources noted that the government had never officially committed to
funding all four proposed plants and that as a result it could cut the number of
demonstration plants back to two without technically reneging on its promises.
FULL STORY at
<[8]http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2250011/industry-warns-goverment-cc
s>
========
(6) U.S. SENATORS MOVE TO REIN IN EPA WHILE OBAMA TALKS TOUGH ON CLIMATE
WSJ Environmental Capital, 23 September 2009
<[9]http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/23/awkward-senators-move-to-rein-i
n-epa-as-obama-talks-tough-on-climate/>
By Stephen Power
Howâs this for awkward timing? Even as President Obama tries to persuade other countries
gathered at the U.N. climate confab and upcoming G-20 meeting that the U.S. will take
action on climate change, senators from both parties are moving to limit what his
administration can do to fight climate change.
At issue are two amendments to a huge government spending bill nearing a vote in the
Senate that would pare the Environmental Protection Agencyâs authority to regulate
various industriesâ greenhouse-gas emissions.
One amendment, drafted by Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) and backed by ethanol companies,
would limit how the EPA could measure the global-warming impact of growing corn and
other crops for fuel. It would prohibit the agency from considering the emissions that
are said to result when farmers overseas clear grasslands and cut down forests in
response to higher food prices. What do those farmersâ decisions have to do with ethanol
production in the U.S.? Well, according to some researchers, there are some nasty ripple
effects when farmers in the U.S. convert their farmland to growing corn for fuel.
Still, why would the EPA want to go down this road, given the U.S. governmentâs
traditional support for ethanol? Because a 2007 energy law says it has to! More about
this debate here and here.
Another amendment, being circulated by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), would prohibit
the EPA for one year from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants,
factories and small businesses. Sen. Murkowski says sheâs worried about the economic
toll of any regulations that EPA might set; environmental groups say her measure would
render the EPA toothless and undermine U.S. efforts to convince other countries to
reduce their emissions.
Not surprisingly, the Obama administration is speaking out against Sen. Murkowskiâs
proposal. âWe donât think trying to legislate on an appropriations bill is a good idea,â
Carol Browner, the Presidentâs assistant on energy and climate change issues, tells
WSJâs Jonathan Weisman. So does that mean President Obama would veto the entire spending
bill if Ms. Murkowski succeeds in attaching her amendment to the final bill? Ms. Browner
said sheâs not in a position to comment.
Our sources predict a close vote in the Senate, possibly as early as Thursday afternoon.
Stay tuned
>
Copyright 2009, WSJ
========
(7) STUDY REFUTES CONNECTION OF GLOBAL WARMING AND STORM INTENSITY
South Carolina Network, 23 September 2009
<[10]http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2009/09/23/study-refutes-connection-of-glo
bal-warming-and-storm-intensity/>
by Tom Hayes
Over the past 70 years, hurricane frequency in the Atlantic basin is up, but the
strength of the storms have remained relatively constant. Those are the conclusions of a
new study conducted by Clemson University researchers. Clemson Professor of Mathematical
Sciences Robert Lund participated in the study that looked at changes in the tropical
cycle record in the North Atlanticbetween 1851 and 2008. Lund says he knows global
warming is a hot button issue and many researchers have maintained that warming waters
of the Atlantic are increasing the strengths of these storms. We do not see evidence for
this at all, however we do find that the number of storms has recently increased.â
âWe took a look at the record from 1851 to 2008 and we did find a lot of changes besides
recent changes. For instance, we found that around 1935 the count radically increased
and that was probably do to aircraft reconnaissance, being able to fly out into the
ocean and see these storms.â
Also participating in the study were Michael Robbins and Colin Gallagher of Clemson
along with Mississippi State University Mathematics professor Dr. QIQi Lu.
Lund says the increase in the frequency of hurricanes and some measurable increase in
strength of the storms was first observed from data from the beginning of the 20th
century. Lund attributes the observations from better and more sophisticated
technological devices used to monitor the storms. âWe saw them from about 1900 which
makes sense because most of the data recorded before 1900 was guesstimated and not very
consistent. We also found small changes in the strength of the storms around 1960 which
coincides with the onset of satellites.â
Lund says in a number of studies involving the analysis of years and years of data, the
study of probabilities is best conducted by mathematicians. âWe have to play by the
rules of probability and the laws of random chance. As statisticians and probabilists,
we are not allowed to distort the conclusion nor are we invested in any particular
outcome or inference from the data. Weâre just going to crunch the numbers as best we
can with rigorous probability assessments and tell you what we find.â
Lund says the study he and his colleagues just concluded opens up avenues for more
questions yet to answered. âAre the storms changing in terms of duration in terms of how
long they last? Are they occurring in more northern latitudes? There are a lot of small
issues that still need to be tied down, but we sort of felt that at least given the data
that weâve seen recently that this pretty much answers the question of are changes
happening?â
Copyright, SCN
============= (8) OPINION: THE DOG ATE GLOBAL WARMING
National Review Online, 23 September 2009
<[11]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>
By Patrick J. Michaels
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy
debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this
point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be
spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal
in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom
warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded
computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they arenât talking
much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the
United Kingdomâs University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU)
to produce the worldâs first comprehensive history of surface temperature. Itâs known in
the trade as the âJones and Wigleyâ record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley,
and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a
âdiscernible human influence on global climate.â
Putting together such a record isnât at all easy. Weather stations werenât really
designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at
points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends
in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature.
Further, as documented by the University of Coloradoâs Roger Pielke Sr., many of the
stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents,
where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to
verify models of global warming arenât the original records at all. Jones and Wigley,
however, werenât specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their
record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/ 0.2°°C in the 20th
century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that â+/â
came from, so he politely wrote PPhil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data.
Jonesâs response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, âWe have 25
years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your
aim is to try and find something wrong with it?â
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact,
the entire purpose of replication is to âtry and find something wrong.â The ultimate
objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Techâs Peter Webster told Canadian
researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to
him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data.
Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses
of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldnât have the data because he
wasnât an âacademic.â So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of
Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there
were âconfidentialityâ agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that
supplied the data. McIntyreâs blog readers then requested those agreements, country by
country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and
written in very vague language.
Itâs worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the
quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979
(the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from
satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU
data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others
have found otherwise).
Enter the dog that ate global warming.
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of
Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun
new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if
all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the
1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the
station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized)
data.
The statement about âdata storageâ is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere.
The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch
tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the worldâs surface barometric
pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
If we are to believe Jonesâs note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data
and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may
have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year.
So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and
why?
All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S.
Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall whereupon
the Obama Environmental Protection AAgency is going to step in and issue regulations on
carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which canât be challenged on a scientific basis,
a regulation can. If there are no data, thereâs no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to
know the answer to the question posed above.
Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studiies at the Cato Institute
and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Donât Want You to Know.
Copyright 2009, NRO
========== e-mails to the editor ======
(9) CO2 TRACKING TEMPERATURE DURING PERIODS OF COOLING
Julian Parker
Dear Benny,
I am not an environmental scientist and I normally reserve my pondering for astrobiology
and paleoenvironmental discussions but I have recently taken an interest in the CO2
debate. I am especially interested in the ice core data and how temperature and CO2
appear to be interrelated as this seems to be used as a common argument in support of
AGW.
I was thinking that in order to understand how temperatures and CO2 may increase in line
with each other during warming periods then it is worth considering what mechanisms that
exist that may explain how CO2 can reduce during a cooling period as the inverse effect
may be present in warming periods.
One that comes to mind is the relationship between CO2 in seawater and the mineral
contents. As CO2 can be removed from the system by the formation of marine shells and
skeletons which are deposited on the ocean floor does there exist a mechanism that can
elevate CO2 storage on the seabed during a cooling period? As temperatures drop,
glaciers grow and commence grinding the bedrock into a fine mineral flour which
eventually flows in part to the sea in outwash or is deposited at the marine glacial
front or is transported into the wider ocean within icebergs. This material will contain
magnesium and calcium which provides the potential for carbonate creation, which in turn
should, provided there is enough nutrients, allow for the biological removal of CO2 and
its deposition as carbonate.
As ice ties up more and more water the sea level will drop and even outside the
influence of the ice-sheets mature rivers steepen in profile and erosion rates +
sediment transport power increases. Back at the glaciated areas the ice thickens and the
erosion rates increase as the power of the glacier increases. This continues to feed the
oceans with more and more mineral potential which can facilitate the removal of CO2 from
the ocean system. Also the carbonate or Calcite Compensation Depth, the depth in the
ocean below which carbonates will re-dissolve back into the sea, changes with
temperature, salinity and pressure and during a deep glacial period is ~1000m deeper
than the present day, so we have a thicker carbonate exoskeleton formation zone and more
sea floor above the CCD to store the new Carbonate on. This, coupled with already
shallower oceans, means that more carbonate can be permanently stored on the ocean
floor. Does this increased CO2 storage potential drop CO2
levels during a cooling period?
Eventually, as shown by the ice cores, the temperature trends in the opposite direction
and the ice starts to retreat. During stable glaciation the ice-sheets carry a massive
load but this is deposited and replenished. With a retreating sheet some of the load is
dumped in-situ as dense immobile clays and damming moraines, and glacial-marine
sedimentation reduces. Less CO2 can be removed as sediment input to the ocean reduces
and the oceanâs CO2 level rises along with the atmospheric CO2. Ocean levels rise,
waters warm, CCD shallows, sedimentation levels drop and the CO2 removal system
rebalances to match the ocean removal potential based on Mg+ and Ca+ levels. Itâs just a
ponder but Iâd be interested in any feedback.
Julian Parker
==================
(10) PLATO AND THE ANCIENT ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISM
William Kay
Dr Peiser,
I take it from your broadcast that you are a fan of Karl Popper. This piece was inspired
by his "Plato" essay published 40 years ago. If you are not familiar with that work you
may find the following jarring and germane.
Environmentalism 400 BC
<[12]http://www.ecofascism.com/article20.html>
Decent word-pictures of environmentalism won't be had from those embroiled in the coil
over the latest eco-imbroglio. Viewed macroscopically, environmentalism is usurping
state power. Entirely for self-aggrandizement an oligarchic party is imposing a policy
platform. Environmentalism isn't about mutant tadpoles and melting ice-burgs. Its about
economic containment. It's an oligarchy bringing uppity capitalists to heel. This is a
repeat performance. A classic rendition was given at Athens 400 BC.
Table of Contents
The Stage: Greece 431 BC
The Protagonist: Athens' Democracy Movement
Climax: The Peloponnesian War
Exit Socrates Enter Plato
Epilogue: Fast Forward 2400 Years for the Same Old Same Old
thank you William Walter Kay
[...] Platoâs program involved strengthening aristocratsâ solidarity and will to rule.
Ruling class degeneration was reversible through eugenics and education. Their agenda
should be: arrest all social change and return as far as possible to the monarchical
state. Change came through two events: defeat by a foreign power or âChange in the
constitution originates, without exception, in the ruling class itself, and only when
this class itself becomes the seat of dissension.â This dissension was caused by the
growth of industry, inter-state commerce, and colonization. Population growth also
caused instability.
Platoâs ideal city-state was self-reliant and agrarian. It needed no harbour or merchant
fleet. Entrepreneurialism would be suppressed. Common citizens would have no means for
travel. Currency would consist of tokens having no intrinsic value. Only the state elite
would possess precious metal. An astrology-based system of religious dogmas and rituals
would be crafted to prevent social change. No variation in scripture or ritual would be
tolerated. Atheists and doubters would be eliminated. The ideal government was an
entirely unaccountable philosopher-king, but at minimum governance should be the
preserve of entrenched experts drawn from the elders of the aristocracy. [..]
Platoâs oligarchic authoritarianism has been reincarnated many times. Once called
âfascismâ it is now âenvironmentalism.â Despite enormous sums spent repackaging this
endeavour as something new, it remains the same old ensemble of socioeconomic actors
reading the same old script. Platoâs ideas can be seen in environmentalismâs utopian
longing for a âsteady-stateâ land-based and self-reliant economy and in its promotion of
the âhundred-mile dietâ where politically correct food consumers shop locally and
organically.
The anti-globalization pan-flash was an oligarchic sponsored anti-trade blitz. Platoâs
theory of divine forms lives on in the Naturalist axiom that wilderness degenerates upon
human contact. Restoring land to its original divine form is now a widely held, and
utterly loony, political objective. Environmentalistsâ affinity with paganism and
spiritualism would have pleased Plato, as would their willingness to treasonously
sacrifice their homelands in order to marginalize their domestic adversaries. Platoâs
nostalgic dream appeals to denizens of the charmed circle yearning for a low-maintenance
social order where one can enjoy the life of banquets above the turbulence always
threatening to tip over the ambrosia buffet.
FULL ESSAY at <[13]http://www.ecofascism.com/article20.html>
==========
(11) RE: GLOBAL WARMING SUITS ARE A HARD SELL, ATTORNEY ADVISES
Colin Hunt
Benny,
There is a fundamental legal error in item 8, Kivalina vs. Exxon-Mobil (CCNet, 23
September 2009). I'm astonished that any court would even entertain such a suit. A
plaintiff cannot sue for damages which have not yet occurred.
Colin Hunt
Canadian Nuclear Association
=========
(12) I THINK PEAK OIL IS DEAD
Mark Lawson
Benny
reluctant though I am to be involved in the debate on limits to oil resources with such
distinquished participants, I should draw your attention to an essay in the September
issue of the American Economics Association's Journal of Economic Perspectives by James
Smith, a distinquished oil and gas economist. The article has drawn favourable comments
and for most observers will kill the debate on peak oil. Here is the link.
<[14]http://www.scribd.com/doc/19401722/World-Oil-Market-or-Mayhem-by-James-Smith>
Smith says a careful analysis suggests that the recent oil price peak was due to nothing
more than good old fashioned supply and demand problems in an area where both supply and
demand react only slowly to circumstances. He also says that although the recent
competition between analysts to pick an oil peak is entertaining it is essentially
irrelevent to policy makers, as a peak - if and when it is reached - could have almost
any results in the market. I won't attempt to summarise his arguments on that point.
More importantly for peak oil proponents, he points to another, authorative analysis of
oil reserves by two senior economists Adelman and Watkins - "Reserve Prices and Mineral
Resource Theory", the Energy Journal 2008. Its available online (as part of a special
issue to acknowledge Watkin's death),
<[15]http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/reprints/Reprint_212_WC.pdf> The article
is very uncomplementary to efforts to forecast the end of oil reserves, saying that it
is impossible to do so. It also produces material (reproduced in graphic form in Smith's
paper) that proven reserves have been growing for decades, not falling.
I think peak oil is dead.
Mark Lawson
Journalist/Reports Editor
The Australian Financial Review
mlawson@afr.com.au [16]http://afr.com.au
==============
(13) SPACE TRAVEL MATHS
Stephen Ashworth
Dear Benny,
According to Richard Wakefield (CCNet 148/2009 - 23 September 2009):
"2) forget about space travel. The distance is prohibitive for one. The closest star is
4.4 x10^16 meters away. If we launched a ship and accelerated at 1G (the body can't
handle more for long periods) it would take more than 12 BILLION YEARS to get there.
Actually much longer since you would have to start to decelerate half way there."
According to my own calculations, if a spacecraft were to accelerate at only one-tenth
of a g, it would attain a speed of 3 x 10^7 m/s after one year, i.e. one-tenth of the
speed of light. At this speed, it would make the crossing to Alpha Centauri in about 46
years, including deceleration at the same rate at its target.
The British Interplanetary Society is well-known for its detailed technical study in the
1970s of a robotic interstellar probe, called Daedalus, designed to reach Barnard's star
in about 50 years flight time using plausible near-future technologies. The Society
will be holding a follow-up meeting on the subject at the end of this month.
Best wishes,
Stephen Ashworth
Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society
23 September 2009
=============
(14) SPACE TRAVEL MYTHS
Robert Redelmeier
Richard Wakefield wrote (CCNet, 23 September 2009)
2) forget about space travel. The distance is prohibitive for one. The
closest star is 4.4 x10^16 meters away. If we launched a ship and
accelerated at 1G (the body can't handle more for long periods) it would
take more than 12 BILLION YEARS to get there. Actually much longer since
you would have to start to decelerate half way there. (and we don't even
know if there are planets there that can sustain us) Forget worm holes.
Stick to what is know for a fact, not fantasy that is unproven to exist.
Plus Relativity forces time dilation between those who accelerate and
those who sit still (the Twin Paradox). Thus those who space travel will
have their time slowed relative to those on earth. Earth will have aged
millions of years compared to decades for the space travelers (as they
accelerate faster).
Richard should check his sums: 312 _days_ of normal 1 gee acceleration gives 90% of
lightspeed. Acceleration is not the limit.
The Twin Paradox is irrelevant to the survival of the human species. What breaks if you
come back (why?) and meet your great-great-...grandson? Human growth requires
estrangement, and societies fail when they cannot tolerate or incorporate it. Many
science fiction authors have explored time-slew multigenerational scenarios. Orson
Scott Card, for one.
-- Robert Redelmeier
HOUSTON TX USA
===========
(15) RE: HUMAN PROGRESS IS A (POSSIBLE) CALAMITY
Mark Duchamp
Dear Benny,
No one can possibly disagree that Norman Borlaug is a modern hero: he actually saved
millions of lives.
However, as he proved the Neo-Malthusians to be wrong, he permitted population explosion
to continue unabated. Only History will be able to balance it all out: the millions
saved today against (who is to know?) the millions starved or massacred tomorrow.
When pitted against any extremist ideology (the green one for example), it is normal
behavior to grab any argument to defend oneself against it. I am equally guilty on that
account, I am sure, and would welcome any justified criticism.
So yes, it is true that another agricultural revolution would allow us to feed a few
more billion people. But is this the purpose of life on earth: reproduce without
restraint till people starve to death by the million? Then we´ll have reached the
limit. Then we´ll know for sure we have to stop. Then we´ll pass some law against
reproducing at a rate of, say, 2,2 per family (to account for unmarried, childless
people).
So, what we are doing now is procrastinating till we have no choice but to adopt such
laws. - Is that smart ? I would say not, for while we procrastinate, we are forgoing
what makes life bearable: elbow room, open spaces, soul-lifting natural landscapes - in
a nutshell : quality of life.
And what would happen to the Amazon? What would happen to wildlife?
These may appear to be elitist considerations, as feeding the hungry is, and should be,
the only objective. But how smart is it to open the floodgates wider while one is trying
to contain the water?
And is it worth giving up wildlife in the world so that Mexico City can house 50 million
people instead of 25? Nairobi 25 instead of 3 (that's the projection)? And London 20
instead of 14? What good would that do?
I may be a pessimist, a doom-monger, but I fail to see why we should all want to see Los
Angeles increase its population - or London, or Paris, or New York... Yes, merchants
will have more consumers for their goods, and politicians more taxpayers to milk. But is
that what should be our goal?
Should we let politicians dictate us: you must have more babies so as to service the
huge debt we have wrecklessly contracted in your name? Or should we tell them: cut down
on the Pork, and become more responsible?
Mark Duchamp
EDITORâS NOTE: Mark: Your Malthusian anxiety is quite understandable - in the same way
that the angst of many half-informed people about global warming Thermageddon is quite
understandable. There is little that I can say in a view words that would ease your
apprehension. One recommendation I can make, however, is to encourage you to read up on
current demographic research and debates in order to develop a more balanced view of a
highly complex problem. What you will discover is that the challenges of global
population growth are far less apocalyptic, and potentially far more manageable, than
the doom-mongers claim. One book in particular would make a good start for a better
understanding: Jacqueline Kasun's "The war against population: the economics and
ideology of world population"
<[17]http://books.google.com/books?id=sPNP4_POjc8C&dq=The+War+Against+Population&printse
c=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=kze7St33JdGrjAfv5ZzBCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res
num=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false> Let me know what you make of it. BJP
==========
(16) ORCHESTRATING VOLUNTARY CURBS ON REPRODUCTION DEMOCRATICCALLY
Peter Salonius
Dear Benny
In a CCNet post September 21, 2009 entitled âMISANTHROPY AND POPULATION ANXIETYâ, John
A. wrote: âyour guesstimate is simply wrong because your key assumptions are âyour
wrong. There is no such thing as a "carrying capacity" for human beings.â
In THEOILDRUM essay I offered (CCNet, September 18, 2009), I referenced âSustainability
or Collapse?â edited by Robert Costanza et al., featuring contributions by
interdisciplinary teams at a workshop on Integrated History and Future of People on
Earth (IHOPE), most of which suggest --- that IF, as John A. asserts, the âhuman
species is able to create new food sources, improve food sources (thanks for example to
the work of people like Norman Borlaug), create new living environments in formerly
inhospitable places, have many more people fed, clothed and housed than ever before, and
protect more species and natural environments than ever before.â --- then it will be
the first time in our history that a civilization has not overshot the carrying capacity
of its supporting ecosystem.
John A. also wrote âThere is no such thing as a voluntary reduction of no or
one-parent-family behavior without fundamental denial of human rights.
There never has been.â For a fellow who lauds the creativity of the human species, John
A. has given rather short shrift to our ability to craft and launch educational
campaigns, explaining why we think that resource scarcity warrants global population
reduction, in advance of democratically orchestrated plebiscites/referenda in which we
hope that the majority will approve the adoption of policies leading to the institution
of financial grant and taxation programs that would reward reproductive behavior that
institutionalizes a population reduction trajectory that would play itself out over a
very long period of time. We already have considerable experience with the employment of
financial incentives and taxation penalties designed to alter various human behaviors.
These incentives and penalties can be increased over time as necessary, by adaptive
management, to achieve No or One Child Per Family reproductive behavior by the majority
of couples, as public policy increasin
gly renders this behavior desirable in the interests of the public good. Human numbers
could be halved within the coming century by such programs.
John A. also wrote:â âWho are the "us" and the "we" that "require the 'voluntary'
adoption of no or one-child-per-family behavior to orchestrate the Rapid Population
Decline that is necessary now"? I'm willing to be bet that those people would have
nothing to do with any democratic processâ. The paragraph above, with reference to the
democratic process we have in mind, should counter John A.âs negative comments regarding
our commitment to attempting to achieve majority support for population reduction.
Peter Salonius
=========
(17) DICTATORSHIPS, POPULATION AND PEAK OIL
Richard Wakefield
Dear Benny:
Let's be clear. I really hope you are right. I would like nothing more than for my
grandchildren to have a prosperous and safe life. You are also correct that oppressive
governments (communists, dictatorships and elected
leftists) are a bane on civilization, which begs the question, how do we
eliminate them? Militarily? Just look at the outcry in getting Iraq cleaned up. We
have been in Afghanistan for 8 years now and a recent report
by a general in the field claims the situation is worse, not better. Plus
the Canadian public is itching for our troops to get out of there and EU
countries are not eager to put their own troops in harmsway. (BTW I support
both actions). However, we do nothing in Darfur. We do nothing to stop
China from securing oil fields in Africa paid for with AK47's.
I am above all a realist. Our civilization is a very diverse and complex place. We here
in the west claim we see things clearly because our decisions are based on science and
logic, but in reality, there are cultures who's entire existence is based on myth and
religious doctrine, in some cases, hell bent on eliminating other cultures by force. The
UN is completely impotent, and I would not in any way support any kind of one world
government. So it may be a nice dream to wish for a Utopia, the likelihood of such
coming any time is near zero, based on past human history.
Resource depletion is a fact. The article you reposted is arguing from geological peak.
It's irrelevant. Seems those who hope there is lots of oil
yet to be found completely ignore the two fundamental limiting factors for
oil extraction. Flow rates and ERoEI. I would love to hear from anyone who
can show me how, through technology, we can overcome the problem of the
energy required to extract the oil from places like Brazil, Bakken and the
Tar Sands. Once it takes more energy to get the oil than we get out of it,
I fail to see how we have not physically run out of oil. Not one of the
rebuttals here, or elsewhere, has addressed those two critical limits to oil
extraction. The article you posted most definitely did not address the
issue of flow rates from these new finds. We are entering into a time never
before seen. Super giant fields (100bb+) are all in terminal decline around
the world. This has never happened before on a world wide scale. The US saw it happen in
the 1970's causing real economic pain. We need to find HUNDREDS of Tibers in the next
few years just to keep up with decline from
aging fields like Cantarell. Or does no one here believe that Cantarell is
in a 41% decline rate. The loss of flow rate is 2 million barrels per day
just from that one field. Would numerous Tibers be able to replace that flow rate? Not a
chance. Or that North Sea is in decline. Or that Indonesia is in decline. Are they or
are they not in decline? Skeptics of peak oil have to explain the November IEA report
too.
And it's not just oil. Potash extraction is in decline (China just signed a
contract with Canada to pay 3 times the going rate for our potash). Rare
earth element scarcity is a serious limit for mass production of electric
vehicles. If you look at the ore concentrations of copper that has been
mined over the past 100 years you will see a trend to ever smaller percents
being mined (which requires a larger energy requirement to extract and
refine). Uranium, natural gas and even coal falls into resources that are
depleting.
I know I sound just like the AGW dogmatists, which for me is very
frustrating, but the difference is I rely on evidence. As yet, no one here
has provided any evidence that resource depletion is not happening. Instead
the arguments are hope faith-based speculations that technology and free
markets will solve the problem, any problem, we face. I really do hope you
are right, I'll leave it in the hands of those who wish to try, and good
luck to them. Personally, I'm going to prepare for the worse, and hope for
the best. I would love nothing more than to be wrong.
Lastly, I'm also going to take a swipe at the comment: "we're the only
species that is on its way of being in full charge of this planet, its
environment and its future." A tad arrogant if you ask me. It's comments
like that that allow others to think they can do what ever they want,
destroying in their wake. I look at other life forms having some degree of
sentient beings. They are individuals in their heads just as much as you
are in yours. That's not anthropomorphism, that's measured fact. Pushing
them aside just for us is just as much a genocide as any elimination of
humans. In our past, advanced humans eliminate less advanced humans in the
name of expansion. Now we are doing it to the rest of the biota.
Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Richard. OK: Natural resource depletion is a fact. So what? Will we be
unable to fertilize our soils once we begin to see Potash extraction in decline some
time in the future? Don't you think there are good chances for synthetic fertilizers and
other substitutes? The same holds true for oil. Once it becomes too expensive, we will
use more coal and gas, build more nuclear power plants and develop all sorts of new and
yet unknown forms of energy generation. So what's your problem? The fact that we are in
the process of taking full charge of our planet and its environment comes with
responsibilities, obviously. Anyone who wishes to protect endangered species, as I do,
should foster democratic reform and economic development - because only free and
developed nations are willing and can afford to protect their environment. No wonder
that the rapidly growing middle classes in India and China, hundreds of millions of
them, are beginning to be concerned about clean
water, air quality and the protection of their environments. Unfortunately, it's often
green campaigners that are attempting to stifle economic growth, thus contributing to
societal stagnation and environmental degradation in much of the developing world. BJP
----------------
CCNet is a science policy network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail
to ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an
e-mail to ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information
circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached
information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior
permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints
expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily
reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.
<[18]http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-3840
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------