Right now at 6:20pm in Surrey it is 9C (48F).

Depends where in Surrey. Up on the Hogs Back is a tad colder than Kingston I would say. Also traditionally the Devils Punchbowl at Hindhead has icy snow where the rest of the county is basking in a heatwave.

Kingston has always been sweltering hot whenever I was there, but then I've only been there in the hottest parts of summer :)

I'm taking my temperature reading from the SETI toolbar, which is now saying it's 6C. I've spent some time tonight outside with my telescope and I can certainly say it's been very mild, even though the skies were clear and freezing cold would normally be expected in January. It's a lack of northerly winds I'm sure, but it is certainly a change in the climate.

---

flaming balloons

Science by Bush at ThinkProgress.org

Bush Administration Has Pressured Half Of Gov’t Scientists To Downplay Global Warming

A new report presented to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project shows 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years. Some other findings of the survey:

– 46 percent of government scientists “personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.”

– 46 percent “perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.”

– 38 percent “perceived or personally experienced the disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate.”

– 25 percent “perceived or personally experienced situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

James Hansen, the government’s top global warming researcher, has also revealed that the Bush administration tried to prevent him from speaking freely about global warming to the media. In 2004, the administration also had a requirement that “NASA press officers listened in whenever NASA scientists spoke with reporters, either on the telephone or in person.”

---

From http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/scientists-warming/ :

Bush Administration Has Pressured Half Of Gov’t Scientists To Downplay Global Warming

hansen1.gif A new report presented to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project shows 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years. Some other findings of the survey:

– 46 percent of government scientists “personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.”

– 46 percent “perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.”

– 38 percent “perceived or personally experienced the disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate.”

– 25 percent “perceived or personally experienced situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

James Hansen, the government’s top global warming researcher, has also revealed that the Bush administration tried to prevent him from speaking freely about global warming to the media. In 2004, the administration also had a requirement that “NASA press officers listened in whenever NASA scientists spoke with reporters, either on the telephone or in person.”

A comment appended to this above article reads;

How is this any different from a Communist regime where a “Political Officer” is always present to make sure that party purity is maintained?
It’s shameful beyond belief that American Democracy has sunk to this level.

(Bold added by myself to highlight what I wanted to highlight)

---

flaming balloons

Bad News for Global Warming Alarmists

Michael Asher, January 30, 2007

The Climate Debate turns ugly

It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists. Researchers are finding more and more evidence of natural warming events in the earth's past, events that were far more rapid and dramatic than first thought. Several scientists, disgusted with the media's refusal to carry their mesage accurately, have begun writing letters and books. Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise. Evidence of the beneficial aspects of continues to mount, with arctic seal populations increasing, longer growing seasons, and less extreme temperature swings.

Is it any wonder environmentalists are getting even more emotional in the debate? In public, they state they simply want "truth to out," but the reality is a bit different. Recently, Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen made a strong bid to silence the opposition, calling for the removal of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in catastrophic human-induced global warming. In it, she compared global warming denial to "going on air and saying that hurricanes rotate clockwise," apparently herself unaware that in the southern hemisphere hurricanes do indeed rotate in this direction. Cullen's statement immediately provoked outrage from meteorologists around the nation, with one of them angrily proclaiming, "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."

Heidi Cullen gained earlier fame for hosting environmental writer David Roberts, who openly called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials (complete with death sentences) for any scientist brave enough to dispute the public hysteria on global warming. How's that for support of scientific truth and free speech? In the past, reporters just hung up on scientists who didn't agree with their beliefs ... now they want to lynch them!

Luckily, its not yet illegal to research the true causes of global warming. Late last year, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer released his book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years), detailing the current warming trend's correspondence with a natural 1500-year cycle. Singer notes that most of the current warming ocurred before 1940, and thus before the majority of man's CO2 emissions. He further notes that, since 1940, the earth experienced one 30-year long cooling trend, followed by a 30-year warming trend...both of which were much smaller than the warming right after 1900. Singer's documenting of 600 past historical events of rapid warming further supports his views.

Also, Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark has a book coming out next month: The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. In it, he details his research on cosmic radiation-induced atmospheric cloud formation. Svensmark points out that already-observed changes in solar flux act to reduce cloud cover, and thus cause the earth to reflect less solar radiation back into space. This quite obviously causes a moderate degree of warming...just as we've seen.

Is global warming a man-made danger ... or a part of a natural cycle? More and more scientiests are leaning to the latter. Will the media be brave enough to report their research, or will public hysteria win the day?

---

flaming balloons

Climate change warning for Sydney

By Nick Bryant, BBC News, Sydney

A report on the effects of climate change in Australia paints an alarming picture of life in the city of Sydney.

It warns that if residents do not cut water consumption by more than 50% over the next 20 years, the city will become unsustainable.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report also warns that temperatures could rise 5C above the predicted global average.

This would leave the city facing an almost permanent state of drought.

Rise in heat-related deaths

With its spectacular harbour and beautiful suburban beaches, Sydney is often portrayed as one of the most desirable cities to live in.

But this report paints a disturbing picture of how life here could be completely transformed by the year 2070, if climate change goes unchecked.

It warns of severe droughts nine out of every 10 years, a dramatic rise in the number of bush fires, and freak storm surges which could devastate the coastline.

Scientists predict that rainfall will fall by 40% by 2070, not only creating a massive water crisis, but producing double the number of bush fires.

Heat-related deaths would soar from a current average of 176 a year to 1,300.

Sydney would come to resemble the harsh, dry and inhospitable conditions of remote inland towns.

The government of New South Wales, which commissioned the report, has been alarmed by its findings.

The state premier called it a doomsday scenario, but one which the city and country had to confront.

Along with America, Australia has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the only two major industrialised nations to do so.

---

flaming balloons

If not, we all go down the Climate Change plug together. And face the prospect of WW3 as we squabble over the dwindling energy reserves as coal, oil and gas all gets used up.

The squabble over oil will be fairly long in comming. Read the THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY on the Radford University web site for information that is not generally reported.

"The stone age did not end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil."

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Saudi oil minister.

---

flaming balloons

Perhaps this new element that has been discopvered will help with the answer though I doubt it
Subject: FW: New Element Discovered!!!

The recent global warming issues are proof of the existence of a new chemical element. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element has been named "Governmentium". Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction which would normally take less
than a second - to take over four days to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium - an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as
many morons.

Taxes 'fail to curb travel CO2' (BBC UK)

Current UK green tax plans are unlikely to curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions from travel, a study says.

High-income groups, whose emissions were twice the national average, would absorb any price increase rather than change their travel habits, it said.

Researchers from Oxford University said the data revealed how socio-economic factors shaped how people travelled.

They said targeted measures, such as personal carbon credits, were more likely to influence people's behaviour.

The findings have been published on the day that the Air Passenger Duty on UK flights is doubled; part of the environmental measures outlined by Chancellor Gordon Brown last December.

In their report, the authors questioned the effectiveness of "moderate" tax hikes: "The most conclusive evidence from this study has been the relationship between income and emissions.

"For example, less direct or modestly used fiscal instruments such as moderate petrol or aviation fuel-price increases are less likely to have an effect on the more wealthy sub-sector of the travelling community."

Highest emitters

They suggest that targeted measures, such as awareness campaigns aimed at high emitters or leisure flights, or personal carbon credits would be more effective ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

read more...

---

flaming balloons

Following on from Rush's two "Fun with Global Warming" threads, his hero Lindzen gets a very honourable mention...

From a series of articles in Physics News

Hot topic
Editorial: February 2007

There is strong evidence for the human impact on climate change, but we should not ignore those who think otherwise


A climate of alarm
The conventional view among scientists is that man-made global warming is real and potentially devastating. Climate physicist Richard Lindzen tells Edwin Cartlidge why he disagrees


A model approach to climate change
The Earth is warming up, with potentially disastrous consequences. Computer climate models based on physics are our best hope of predicting and managing climate change, as Adam Scaife, Chris Folland and John Mitchell explain


Those articles in my view give a fair present assessment. Very interestingly, Lindzen's view appears to have changed and moved on to focus on questioning the actual fundamental physics of how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. He also offers a "hopeful belief" in a benevolant negative feedback cloud system to save us all...

Interesting reading.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Following on from Rush's two "Fun with Global Warming" threads, his hero Lindzen gets a very honourable mention...

He's not my hero. He is simply part of the discussion on whether spending what could amount to trillions makes any sense whatsoever.

From a series of articles in Physics News, Hot topic
Editorial: February 2007. There is strong evidence for the human impact on climate change, but we should not ignore those who think otherwise

No, we shouldn't. But even if they are ignored, the focus should be on actual cuts in total emissions, not on the dire consequences and scare tactics.

Like I've said, show Americans that they can save significant money when heating and cooling their homes (the Home Depot plan) and you are well on your way to actual cuts in emissions.

A climate of alarm
The conventional view among scientists is that man-made global warming is real and potentially devastating. Climate physicist Richard Lindzen tells Edwin Cartlidge why he disagrees

This is a pretty good article as well.

Those articles in my view give a fair present assessment. Very interestingly, Lindzen's view appears to have changed and moved on to focus on questioning the actual fundamental physics of how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. He also offers a "hopeful belief" in a benevolant negative feedback cloud system to save us all...

I don't think his fundamental position has changed at all.

He certainly isn't interested in wasting enormous amounts of money for what results in no change.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Following on from Rush's two "Fun with Global Warming" threads, his hero Lindzen gets a very honourable mention...

He's not my hero. He is simply part of the discussion on whether spending what could amount to trillions makes any sense whatsoever.

Those unspecified "trillions" that are lamely and glibly thrown around could be very well spent if they are going to avoid many times that in costs due to rapid climate change if we carry on with our heads buried in the sand.

Note that there's a 20 years or so inertia in the oceans alone... So we need to act sooner rather than later to have a better (and less costly) chance to make our own better (or less worse) consequences.

From a series of articles in Physics News, Hot topic
Editorial: February 2007. There is strong evidence for the human impact on climate change, but we should not ignore those who think otherwise

No, we shouldn't. But even if they are ignored, the focus should be on actual cuts in total emissions, not on the dire consequences and scare tactics.

Like I've said, show Americans that they can save significant money when heating and cooling their homes (the Home Depot plan) and you are well on your way to actual cuts in emissions.

So you want spoon feeding, for free, to show you how to improve your economy and avoid pollution.

What ever happened to that great American spirit to take the moral high ground and be resourceful in a good sense to do what is best for the world?

You're sounding rather poor and impoverished if the best argument that you can come up with is that a few others are polluting a fraction of your pollution and they must clean up first. If you hadn't noticed, America alone pollutes more than the ENTIRE southern hemisphere of our planet.

Also note that we should take TODAY's pollution figures. By the time any other country could equal the present American pollution, hopefully politics will have moved on by then and alread have reduced those pollution levels.

Hey... And it can even be profitable to market the "cleaner" technologies. China desperately needs that now considering some of the pollution nightmares that they are already suffering!

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

This is getting interesting. Are the IPCC making this claim "because they say so"? And, is the IPCC report, released today, already out of date? (They do keep changing their minds about some of the forecasts.)

Blame for warming pinned on man

Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.

The scientific body, in a report released in Paris today, forecasts temperatures will probably rise by between 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by 2100.

But another study released on the eve of publication suggests its previous reports may have been too conservative.

read more...

How computers model climate

---

flaming balloons

The only way to predict the day-to-day weather and changes to the climate over longer timescales is to use computer models.

The BBCs use of computers to try to predict tomorrow's weather is vastly different to the many thousands BOINC computers used in the CPDN climate crunching. I'm not sure it is a good idea for the BBC to try to draw their computers and the thousands crunching for CPDN into some sort of comparison.

---

flaming balloons

Climate change: Time to get serious

As the most authoritative report to date on climate change is published, it is time for the world to get serious about curbing greenhouse gas emissions, argues Oliver Tickell. He calls on all nations to embrace a "Kyoto 2" framework, full of "bold measures" to prevent "severe and adverse consequences".

read more...

That's it then. We can't argue over Kyoto any more. Now it's "Kyoto 2".

Hundreds of millions of people would be forced from their homes by sea level rises, storms, floods and drought. And our planet's biodiversity would face the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

Good grief, we're doomed!

Under Oliver Ticknell's "Kyoto 2" he proposes raising climate funds - which could easily reach $500bn-$1 trillion (£250-£500bn) per year - which could be used in many positive ways, for example... yea right, making certain people rich.

---

flaming balloons

Good grief, we're doomed!

The bird embryo uses up all the resources and space in its shell, then it either hatches or dies.

Humanity needs to either hatch into space, spread out and find new places to live, or accept the consequences.

The 20th century saw the world population increase from 1 billion to 6 billion. The tools of war went from guns and TNT to more than a dozen countries with nuclear weapons. Thousands of species went extinct. There was unparalleled damage to the climate. What will the world be like at the end of the 21st century?

I sympathize with conservationists and all the people trying to correct the situation but I think it's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

---

Interesting Read

The World Factbook

---

Different aspect and different emphasis. Those links are much more focused on the scientific issues surrounding 'The One' greatest critic against Human caused Global Warming. He is the author that started Rush's first thread and is the centre of Rush's debunking 'challenge'.

Do you think that continuously and consciously mis-stating my position helps you or harms you? Does it suggest to other readers that you are actively seeking to discuss difficult aspects of a difficult problem? Or do you think it suggests that you are just an ideologue, interested only in your badly biased rhetoric?

Also, it's rather interesting how Lindzen's main arguments have 'moved on'...

Not, of course, that they've fundamentally changed, or that you've managed to debunk any of them.

Meanwhile, political action needs to move on very much more quickly...

Uh huh. Like Kyoto? Good plan there.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Here you can find the IPCC report (pdf):
Summary for policymakers
Tullio

---

Here you can find the IPCC report (pdf):
Summary for policymakers
Tullio

Thank you for that Tullio.

I've just watched a piece on the report findings on BBC channel 4 and there is still a question of doubt as to a link between global warming and Man causing it. There is still no evidence. Those saying that there is a link are using the logic; it's not caused by solar activity, it's not caused by volcanoes (the two things that caused climate change in the past) - therefore it must be caused by Man.

Whichever it is, the suggestion was don't try to fight it - use your resources to adjust to it.

---

flaming balloons

My contribution to global warming is from my gas guzzling car, which does 72 mpg, and 72 dogs all pooting in the wind. The methane rush is tremendous.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues