July was UK's hottest-ever month 02 August 06

Well, it seems now a bunch of people are jumping on the bandwagon of appearing Green and caring for the climate from the alternative US capital, LA. Although a bit late and probably for opportunistic reasons, at least there is some publicity on this matter now. The whole world needs to wake up and control their activities.

I keep coming back to this theme yet wish I knew how it could be done. Maybe the Internet employing the techniques used by Howard Dean to raise money and spread the word could create it. The new Party would focus on climate and energy and be quite radical in terms of embracing what we need to do differently to solve the problem. It would sponsor credible and capable candidates who have a strong technical or science acumen. I think we have too many lawyers who do not understand that the laws of physics come first.

I think Ross Perot long ago proved a third Party is possible when he was ahead in the polls over both Bush and Clinton during an early phase. If things keep getting worse, then Americans may notice that the Democrats are not viable enough and throwing stones at Republicans will not be enough to inspire confidence in their leadership or that they have a plan that will work.

A third Party would force both major parties to recalculate their spin and bring climate and energy issues to light like Ross Perot did with the national debt. Interestingly, Clinton did balance the budget one year and he did mention that he thought the debates were useful. I think Ross Perot hammering on the debt partly influenced Clinton to balance the budget. I remember that election as being the healthiest one in terms of debating the issues instead of the manipulative spin which proliferates today.

I am disgusted with Kennedy Jr., who is against global warming, but will not champion an off-shore wind farm off Nantucket because it will spoil his view of the ocean. In the last presidential election, I was disgusted at the Vietnam focus of Kerry and Bush’s National Guard focus when the real issue concerned Iraq. I was disgusted at Kerry suggesting we use oil from the strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices blaming Bush for high prices.

Quite the contrary, we should be adding to the oil storage here to promote energy security. Energy prices are so volatile and unpredictable that any attempt at keeping prices low would eventually cause them to skyrocket at a time when we cannot adjust quickly to it.

This proved Kerry’s low knowledge of energy issues and his patronage of the voters to get their vote simply by promising lower gasoline prices. His strategy would insure a dependence on oil and that we would have nothing in reserve during an emergency. So this was our alternative to the Republican mafia! Big Deal!

Instead of being concerned about current prices, why not control the price of energy by raising it consistently through taxation to promote energy efficiency with the revenue subsidizing sustainable strategies. One important benefit would be energy-price predictability which is important to insure calculated energy savings would be correct and not overly conservative. This would inspire changing infrastructure based on economics.

Maybe we need a courageous third Party to tell the truth. Where else is it going to come from? I bet many Americans would love to hear something intelligent for a change!

Best Regards,

Dan

& even if it’s for other motives.

That’s what we’ve come to. Beggars & scavangers, looking for crumbs of kindness by way of efforts (bogus as they may be) to reduce GHGs.

Hi Dan, interesting comments. Was Ross Perot not seen as a bit eccentric? And I’d be interested to hear your views on Al Gore. There is a contrast between what he’s written (then and now) and what he’s done!

Douglas Coker

Well done Mark. This morning’s BBC Today debate with Simon Retallack of the IPPR and yourself was very good. Access via listen again procedure – just before 7.00am.

I’m intrigued to know what they said about your work. Getting the balance right between necessarily describing alarming scenarios and being unnecessarily alarmist is tricky. I do think it’s incumbent on us to suggest solutions as soon as we’ve outlined the problems.

One other comment. I fear there is a danger we counterpose individual action to collective, government led, action on dealing with AGW/CC. Obviously one person making a minor adjustment to CO2 emitting behaviour won’t register on any scale. But we are not acting alone in this. There is a movement emerging. Every week there is evidence of yet another person or organisation engaging, starting up and campaigning or doing something to reduce CO2 emissions. My favourites list grows and grows – this internet thing is a wonderful tool.

I think there a real contradiction evident when people say they are not going to take action at an individual level to reduce emissions but they are expecting government to do more. Don’t they understand that if the government does eventually do more, part of that “more” will be, using either carrots or sticks, introducing incentives and measures to persuade us to do what we’ve just refused to do individually. I don’t get it … we know how urgent the situation is … act now individually AND pressure government etc to encourage others to act in concert.

If there is a flaw in this argument would someone please point it out to me!

Douglas Coker

as long as it is “true alarmist” rather than “false alarmist.” I’d hate to be in that theater on fire & burn to death because everyone was afraid to shout “fire,” because it MIGHT cause a panicked stampede. So we just sit there & burn to death. Great idea.

Frankly I don’t think anyone can be alarmist enough on global warming. It’s like this issue that is so enormous none of us can grasp its enormity.

Furthermore, no matter how much alarmism there is on GW, people don’t seem to be much concerned about it, not enough to, say, do something about it.

So can I chastize all people, esp environmentalists (who should know better) for not being alarmist enough? That’s the real problem.

Let’s try & figure out how we can be more alarmist—so as to approach the alarmism required for this problem.

as long as it is “true alarmist” rather than “false alarmist.” I’d hate to be in that theater on fire & burn to death because everyone was afraid to shout “fire,” because it MIGHT cause a panicked stampede. So we just sit there & burn to death. Great idea.

Frankly I don’t think anyone can be alarmist enough on global warming. It’s like this issue that is so enormous none of us can grasp its enormity.

Furthermore, no matter how much alarmism there is on GW, people don’t seem to be much concerned about it, not enough to, say, do something about it.

So can I chastize all people, esp environmentalists (who should know better) for not being alarmist enough? That’s the real problem.

Let’s try & figure out how we can be more alarmist—so as to approach the alarmism required for this problem.

I just read that Pat Robertson, a very conservative Christian, has just converted to a AGW believer due to the heat wave in the U.S.

I guess my answer to any skeptic or scientist who pooh-poohs a AGW-heatwave link, would be, “Yeh, okay, just a ‘normal’ fluctuation, so what’ll it be like when GW starts kicking in?”

Another way I look at it is that given the actual conditions we live in (the current GHGs & AGW), I feel we can attribute all weather to AGW (we could call on the “butterfly effect” if need be – how tiny changes affect big things). So it is now up to others to prove at 95% certainty that a certain heatwave or hurricane is due to natural fluctuations.

Another thing is I just read about nights being extremely warmer than in the past (I’m sure well beyond any “natural” fluctuations – and this I think is a GW signature, so maybe we can prove fairly conclusively that GW is heating up the nights (tho the days my still perhaps be within “natural” fluctuations), and it is the hot nights more than the hot days that kill people, who don’t have that cooler time to recouperate anymore.

The interview, which I’ve just listened to again, really is very good. Humphreys gives Mark and Simon R 6 minutes plus to debate. To hear it go to the Radio 4 Today programme here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ Click on the Thursday (ie yesterday’s button) and then choose the 6.30 – 7.00 option and then, using the slider, start listening 20 minutes in – whew! It is worth it – honest!

And BTW the IPPR press release re the report is here http://www.ippr.org.uk/articles/?id=2256 and the full Warm Words report in pdf form is downloadable free here http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=485

Douglas Coker

I’ve just come across this “Can Scientists and Journalists Work Together to Improve Coverage of the Hurricane-Global Warming Controversy?” here http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/hurricanes/ courtesy of Chris Mooney here http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/08/covering_hurricanes_and_global.php#more

There is an overlap with Mark’s radio 4 discussion. I think all this is a sign of a maturing and necessary debate. A few feathers may be ruffled on the way but if the outcome is more effective communication on AGW/CC leading to much more concerted action then it will all be very worthwhile.

Onwards and upwards.

Dougals Coker

My comments were not an endorsement of Perot but rather that his involvement was helpful to the political debate and that his initial appeal indicated that something may be lacking in both our political parties.

I would vote for Al Gore if he ran for President and hope he does run for President. I think John McCain is a decent person in the Republican Party and if we had a weak Democratic candidate, I would consider him if he ran. He is concerned about Global Warming.

On a third Party, I think it would help strengthen both the Republican and Democratic Parties by making them focus on issues rather than manipulative spin and negative ads against the other candidate.

About Perot, .. I do not think Perot had the political acumen to be a public official let alone President. I did like his educational approach pointing to graphs of the federal budget showing our growing national debt which haunts us today. This contrasts with the negative political spin of recent times which is mostly subterfuge rather than educational.

Perot was quite entertaining with his wit and I think this had an appeal to many Americans. My most memorable experience was during the first debate between Perot, Clinton, and Bush Senior. Bush had the first question on the value of incumbent experience. After a long articulate answer by the incumbent Bush, the next question went to Perot to solicit his response. Perot said with the characteristic twang in his voice:

“I don’t have any experience creating a 6 trillion dollar debt!” with very strong emphasis on the last 4 words!

Based on the known fact Perot was a billionaire, his caustic but candid remark brought much laughter from the audience as Bush Senior’s facial expression sunk in astonishment to what Perot had said. Perot’s simple statement destroyed the great impression Bush thought he had made.

I cannot help but like a guy like that and I love a good laugh. He was more adversarial toward Bush and this helped Clinton get elected. In return, I do think Clinton balanced the budget due in part to Perot bringing up the issue so much.

Kind Regards,

Dan

I believe people must lead by example. Guilt is the appropriate emotion to have if we indulge ourselves too much. This problem is not one we can point at others to solve and lay back and do nothing.

Best,

Dan

Anyhow, it is indeed the common folk that has to catch on, I agree. Following from your night temperature point, here’s an interesting piece of study: http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf It showed that there is a marked difference between the temperature ranges when there are no flights. Sept 11th 2001 had provided the occasion for this observation in this case.

The properties of greenhouse gases tend to hold the heat in just like clouds do during the night. This is a fact.

So, when the temperature lows are much higher than before, this would indicate a GW influence.

Best,

Dan

Is warming nights the combined effect of increased GHGs and contrails and other aerosols? You’d expect nights to have warmed much more than days where many aerosols act to dim the warming influences.

I’d expect this to be most pronounced in arid areas where the daily temperature range tends to be wider. My family in-laws in Israel report having to use far less bedcovering now than 40 years ago at the same elevation.

Is warming nights the combined effect of increased GHGs and contrails and other aerosols? You’d expect nights to have warmed much more than days where many aerosols act to dim the warming influences.

I’d expect this to be most pronounced in arid areas where the daily temperature range tends to be wider. My family in-laws in Israel report having to use far less bedcovering now than 40 years ago at the same elevation.

remember what Lynn said here?

I read that the Democrats are far ahead of most Republicans on this issue (see here). Isn’t the hard part to get through to people what they need to agree to, which is where Al Gore’s alliance comes in?

and Al Gore is on the right track and he may be what the Democrats need to turn them around.

Still, many Democrats get ahead by throwing stones at the Republicans and sometimes this is all they have to do politically. Some are not very bright on energy or climate issues. I think this can cause Democrats not to develop their plans better.

Politics and technical competence are not always in alignment. If the Republicans or a third party were more engaged on debating issues on technical merits, then a better plan would emerge. Bush denies GW and it does not take a whole lot to look better than Bush.

For me, I think a viable third entity would draw more people from the Republican ranks than the Democrats. In the end, I see this development as helping both parties because they would be talking issues in more detail.

BTW, I have heard many very stupid statements from Democrats and even Mark has posted some of those aspects from his visit here. I see more BAU from both parties rather than a focus on ideas which will work. In that light, I think the Democrats would not prevent climate change even if they are more focused than the Republicans.

I know more than you may realize. I have seen first hand how Democrats and even environmental groups have used GW politically but have created little substance and do not understand the basics. It is so much spin that the substance is nearly non existent.

In this war of words, easy ideas are being promoted as if they are the “cure all” and emission increases are reported as emission reductions.

For example, if a “new” energy efficient building is built which is 30 percent more efficient, then it increases emissions 70 percent over a standard building. It does not reduce emissions by 30 percent.

In the solution focus, what we do has to reflect what needs to happen in the atmosphere. The political party and/or environmental groups who are just trying to “look good” to the public do not reassure me.

So, if I were a part of a correct focus, I would not be telling lies. I would speak the truth as it is. One thing I see so often is that the truth does not mean anything anymore. Getting votes by pandering to the voters does. I hear little focus on educating the public EXCEPT for Al Gore.

In my mind, the third party would even challenge Al Gore for not doing enough. I say this partly because some required solutions may be politically incorrect for Democrats to suggest.

Kind Regards,

Dan

The following article appeared at http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm.

By Peter Schweizer

“Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a “carbon-neutral lifestyle.” To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. “Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb,” warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin.” ON DEADLINE: Your thoughts?

“Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore’s example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a “carbon-neutral lifestyle.” But if Al Gore is the world’s role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

“For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film’s distributor, pays this.)

“Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

“Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

“But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore’s office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

“Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, “Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence.” The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has “tried to move people to act.” Yet, astoundingly, Gore’s persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

“Maybe our very existence isn’t threatened.

“Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn’t Gore dump his family’s large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family’s trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

“Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn’t mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

“Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

“The issue here is not simply Gore’s hypocrisy; it’s a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn’t he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

“Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.”

Hmm. Want to supersize that ego?

I have always noticed how critical information is absent. Attacking the messenger does not invalidate that we have a climate problem anyway.

I firmly believe that people should walk their talk. Norbert, I am sure you are doing precisely that and that you are very extravagant in your energy use and I am sure your carbon profile is quite large. Why? You believe more carbon is good for the environment as you shared information in the past of how much faster plants would grow if we only just had more carbon in the air.

I have noticed that this article does not have information on the exact energy usage of Al Gore’s large homes which may be very energy efficient. Also, those homes may include administrative offices or have accommodations for secret service protection requiring the investment in the floor area cited.

About his private jet, the article already acknowledges the carbon emissions are being compensated by Paramount Classics and why? Maybe it is because Al Gore has something to do with why Paramount Classics can afford it! So in effect Al Gore is really footing the bill! Besides, a private jet is safer than commercial airlines these days for this VIP.

About the Gore’s switching to Green Energy, the article you cite already acknowledged they are looking at making the switch to it!

About the zinc mine, zinc is used in many applications such as the zinc-air battery which has a very high energy density (110 to 200 W•h/kg). They put out continuous energy and the voltage does not drop until the battery is over 80-85% depleted. Zinc-air batteries can be produced in mass quantities inexpensively. Although not rechargeable, the zinc can be recycled in which the zinc oxide from the used batteries is smelted back into zinc metal and remixed with recycled electrolyte. Al Gore is smart to invest in zinc.

The question was asked on why did Al Gore dump Oxy Petrol. Maybe he dumped the stock precisely for the reasons cited namely because it is an oil stock and as cited “Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas”. No wonder he dumped the stock! Duh!!!!

Al Gore is making progress and you and Peter Schweizer are not!

Dan

You can look at plots and an Excel spreadsheet of the data recently released by the British Met Office at http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003016.html.

I can see no hint of a hockey stick in the plots.

Maybe not a hockey stick, but your reference sites suggests the last 2 decades to have warmed significantly above the average of the preceding 3 centuries.

Just go to your own cited links below and look to the annual data of the far right and scroll to the end of that and what I said is evident.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Daily/HadCET_act.txt

And, the “last 20 year” graph of the data shows many annual average temperatures above 10 C and when compared to the total data graph above it, few data points go above the 10 C line. Your own link below:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003016.html

Have a nice day Norbert!

Dan