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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------