THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
JZSmith,
I’m sure you’re quite right, at least in the USA, and that the word ‘nationalisation’ is never used in connection with the massive bail out of the two FMs and other ‘institutions’. But, what’s the saying? If it quacks like a duck etc etc.
It is quite interesting how the old certainties are being cast aside at the moment. Five years ago when AIG was making very healthy profits the directors and owners would have been unanimous in their opinion that Governments role was be say stay well out of their way. The very highly paid directors would have defended their multi million dollar salary packages on the grounds that they were ‘special’ people who had rare skills and these seven figure sums were just a reflection of their market worth. Nationalise AIG? They would have given you a thousand and one reasons why it was not only a bad idea, but why it was impossible too.
Its not so impossible now is it? US$85 billion to bail them out of the mess that they’ve caused, not just to their own company but to the worldwide economy too. All these guys who would have previously been so critical of ‘wasteful’ government spending in the past. How it was such a bad idea to even spend $85 on a simple medical procedure for a child. They’ll be keeping a bit quieter now, for the time being. But, give them a few years and if everything returns to something like normality , they’ll be back to their usual ‘normal’ selves too.
I’ve been in the wilds of Romania for the last few days and not watching whats happening here at all, but have just managed to get a connection and delete nearly 500 spam comments that have been caught by Akismet. Sorry if any genuine ones were part of the carnage.
Peter: there is NO moderation on this blog of the kind you are suggesting.
There seems to be a bad case of while the mouse is away the cats will play – or something like that. I’ll be back next week.
Greeting to all from the very chilly Balkans.
Ahhhhhhh!
I have to agree with Peter on this one, (I think). I would let these companies fail. The mismanagement of these privately owned companies should have nothing to do with me or JZ Smith or any other taxpaying citizen. There are a myriad of complexities involved here and I understand that the average AIG employee, (who would be out of a job if my way was pursued) is not to blame either.
I’m not certain where a child’s $85 dollar medical procedure comes into play with the rest of Peter’s statement.
There must be some specifics or details that I haven’t been made privy to, but on the face of it, the taxpayers should not foot the bill for any of this. I would like to see all of the board of directors and the senior executives fired, (or jailed) and their assets forfeited to the shareholders or to lessen the blow to the taxpayer.
GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
(That was my attempt to somehow stay on topic).
Hi Peter,
Looks like you have chosen (1623) to avoid entering into any discussion about false IPCC claims of accelerating sea level rise in the latter part of the 20th century. I actually never thought you would respond to something as specific as that, and that you would prefer to stick with generalized banalities about “cherry picking”, “one year’s data”, etc. Fits your pattern perfectly.
You are absolutely correct when you say that the melting of (floating) Arctic sea ice will have absolutely no impact on sea level.
But let’s get back to your statement:
“I know it is a cliche but the melting Arctic Ice really should be considered the canary in the coal mine. While the canary, and maybe Polar Bears too, might die, we’ll still live for a while longer. However if we ignore the canary’s death ………”
Yeah. And once we find out what is causing the Arctic currents and wind flow patterns to change and the ice to melt, we will know a bit more than we do today. Don’t know if there is anything we can do about it, but then again it has been going on (in a cyclical fashion) since we’ve been coming out of the Little Ice Age more than 150 years ago. Whether there is the beginning of a trend reversal today (as there has been with global temperature) is hard to tell as yet.
Would you consider the growing Antarctic Ice another “canary in the coal mine”? Do you think that the current Antarctic cooling may result in a die-off of the penguins?
If so, what can we do to “mitigate” against this impending disaster?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Some “take-home” messages from your NSIDC press blurb.
Minimum Arctic sea ice extent reached in 2008 is second lowest since 1979 (no comparison is made for earlier periods).
It is 390,000 square km or 9.4% higher than it was at its lowest point in 2007.
The low-point linear trend has been a reduction of around 8.7% per decade since records started.
NSIDC states, “the natural variability of the climate system has frequently been known to trick human efforts at forecasting the future”.
All makes sense to me.
But I fail to see any “canary” here, Peter, and even less of a link to human CO2 emissions. Do you? If so, please explain.
Regards,
Max
Max,
So it’s all down to ‘Arctic currents and wind flow’ patterns is it? Nothing to do with rising temperatures?
“All makes sense to me.” That must be one of you favourite phrases. Tell us something about your wider world view and what makes you tick. What else makes sense to you?
Tony,
I wasn’t being totally serious about your spam filter ‘knowing’ which were the pro-science websites! I do know that it was probably just as harsh on everyone.
Brute,
I’m not sure that I’m just saying that the government should let big banks and big financial institutions fail. We’ve got the same problem here in Australia too, of course, but on a lesser scale.
However, I am certainly against letting the ex-bosses walk away from the carnage with their personal fortunes intact. I’d agree that a jail term would be appropriate if fraud has occurred. If the businesses do recover under government ownership, as Northern Rock looks like it will in the UK, why just give it back to the ‘private sector’ for the same thing to happen again in the future when some other crook finds his way to the top of the pile?
I’d like to see some experimentation on worker democracy in nationalised industries to free them up from the dead hand of government bureaucracy. Maybe a 50-50 split in the ownership of the enterprise too. Having elected workers on the boards of large companies did work well in Germany in the post war years. Do they still do that?
Hi Peter,
You asked me, “So it’s all down to ‘Arctic currents and wind flow’ patterns is it? Nothing to do with rising temperatures?”
I would think it has to do with all of these factors (as I believe NSIDC have stated), with the root causes for all three still largely unknown or speculative.
But since NSIDC press releases on Arctic sea ice seem to be a favorite topic for you, I thought I would sort of summarize where these stand today.
A year ago, NSIDC told us that we had reached a record low level of Arctic sea ice. The 2007 minimum was aound 20% below the previous minimum level reached in 2005. This was deemed to be an “alarming” sign that AGW is changing Arctic climate.
If this trend continued, it was apparently only a matter of time until we would see an “ice free” Arctic summer (suggesting imminent doom for the polar bears).
When last winter had larger than normal recovery of sea ice we were told by NSIDC that this was “new ice”, which was thinner than “old ice”, and would therefore melt more easily when winter was over, so an “ice free” summer could still be possible.
Now NSIDC tells use that not only did we not have an “ice free” summer, but the sea ice is 9.4% greater in extent than last year at this date.
So this added 9.4% survived melting despite being “new ice” and has now become “old ice” (which does not melt as easily as “new ice”).
We do not know what this winter will bring, although the UN’s World Meteorological Organization and the Farmers’ Almanac agree that it should be a “colder than normal” winter.
But we know one thing for sure. Winter season 2008/2009 is starting off with 9.4% more Arctic sea ice cover than winter season 2007/2008 and no one at NSIDC is talking about an “ice free” summer 2009.
One or two years do not make a record.
The linear trend of year-to-year minimum sea ice extent has been around 9 to 10% loss per decade since satellite records started in 1979.
The question is: has this trend started to reverse as has the warming trend in global temperatures?
Only time will tell.
But it is extremely unlikely that we will have an “ice free” summer 2009 in the Arctic, so the polar bears can relax for a bit.
Regards,
Max
Peter and Brute,
I am personally very uncomfortable with the current bailouts, with Fannie-Freddie the possible exception. These organizations are only partly independent anyway, and are called Government Sponsored Enterprises. The have (had—all have been fired and replaced) their own boards and CEO’s and their stock can be purchased on the open market. They are fairly regulated.
Their role in the mortgage biz is to expand home ownership by buying mortgages on the secondary markets, then repackage these mortgages into “mortgage back securities” (MBS). The Great Depression days when Fannie was born no other entity could or was allowed to create MBS. Freddie was created in the 1970s to offer some competition to Fannie.
Legislation in the late 1990’s allowed commercial banks to consolidate, therefore merging their operations. The objective was to introduce more competition to the financial services industry. This allowed the investment banks to package their own loans from their commercial banking operations into so-called ‘private label’ MBS, and then sell them on the open market.
Couple this situation with other legislation in the 1990’s that required lending institutions to offer mortgages to all areas they served, eliminating what was called “red lining”, and you have a recipe for disaster. The banks were required by GOVERNMENT REGULATION to offer loans to people with poor credit or no credit. To mitigate their risk, the banks came up with sub-prime lending rules, and then could repackage these sub-prime loans with high quality loans and then sell them off as MBS’s.
All of a sudden more people could buy houses, the bubble began to build, then it popped, and now blood runs down Wall Street.
As is so often the case, and as I fear it will be again with AGW “solutions” [Ha, Tony, I got it back on topic!], the good intentions of the Clinton Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress (at the time) ended up a crushing blow to many low-income people. They will feel the brunt of this crisis, not anyone on Wall Street.
As my dad always used to say, ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’.
Hi Peter,
Having lived and worked in Germany for several years I can address your question to Brute: “Having elected workers on the boards of large companies did work well in Germany in the post war years. Do they still do that?”
The law was passed in 1976, during a SPD government. It had first been proposed by British occupation authorities in the late 1940s for the steel and coal industries.
Saying that this “worked well” is an overstatement. Germany is heavily unionized and the “worker representatives” on the board were largely union members. So the interests of the company shareholders were in effect balanced by the interests of the unions. Some companies also included management “workers” (rather than only union members) which eased this problem.
There was a proposal of “Paritätsmitbestimmung” (equal voting right of union and management representatives), but this was replaced by a “Quasiparitätsmitbestimmung”, where both sides had equal representation on the board, but the board chairman (elected by the shareholders) had two votes, in effect giving the shareholders the majority vote.
There was a general revision of the law in 2000. More recently the law has come under fire for two reasons: The “worker representatives” have in many cases simply become representatives of the very large and powerful unions, so that “union interests” are given priority over “workers’ interests”. This often collides with process or operational improvement programs intended to make the company more competitive. A second criticism is that many German corporations have extensive operations outside of Germany, and the interests of these workers are not represented, even when these workers represent the majority of the employees of the company.
But, yes, it still exists, warts and all, and German industries manage to compete and survive despite it. Some others move their headquarters to Switzerland or elsewhere.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Enjoyed your #1603 where Donald Cavalieri, a senior research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is telling us that Antarctic sea ice is growing “at a rate of 0.6% per decade” from 1979 to 2006” “in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming.”
This article is good for a belly-laugh.
But wait! It gets even “curiouser”.
NSIDC records show that Antarctic sea ice has grown at a rate of around 2% per decade (average of the rates for each month), rather than 0.6% (based on the average of the rates for Cavalieri’s “cherry-picked” month of August).
Does this mean we’re really having three times as much global warming?
Ouch!
To your question, “Don’t they ever feel embarrassed?” Doesn’t look like it.
Regards,
Max
Not being a world finance historian, I’m at a loss, but didn’t numerous private companies become nationalized in the UK during the “UK communist revolution” after World War II? Electric, Telephone, Railways, Oil, Gas, Coal, etc became property of the “state” until Margaret Thatcher sold them back to the people? (I believe she/the government retained 51%?)
Sep 17, 2008
Is This The Beginning of Global Cooling
By Allan MacRae
Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.
Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.
See graph here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG
Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, is spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.
Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.
Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between “warm” and “cool” phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its “warm” phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its “cool” phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its “warm” phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.
Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming.
Brute,
Thew postwar economic system which was prevalent in the UK and Europe after WW2 was usually described as the mixed economy where the monopoly sectors of the economy such as railways, water, gas (not oil), electricity etc was owned by the State and the more competitive areas were owned by the private sector.
The idea was that it was impractical to have two water pipes running side by side so customers could choose the cheaper. It was very successful. It still exists in large part in Australia and much of Europe too. The UK moved away from the principle under Mrs T, as you say, and ended up with the highest rail, electricity and water prices in Europe as a result.
I wouldn’t argue with privatisation of telephone services though. Changed technology has meant that telephone services are no longer restricted to the telephone copper network and therefore no longer can be considered a monopoly.
I suspect that many would consider this sort of discussion to be “off topic”. I would argue that it is probably more “on topic” than arguing about such things as the climate sensitivity of CO2 levels. It is no coincidence that those who argue most vociferously against the science of climate change come, with very few exceptions, from the political right. They are worried that ‘free-wheeling’ type capitalism is going to suffer if it has to cope with addressing the CO2 problem.
Recent events have shown that unrestrained Capitalism is more than capable of self destructing on its own though. The supporters of a totally deregulated economy probably should have more pressing concerns than CO2 trading at the the moment.
I do object when loopy environmentalist interfere with free trade, progress and prosperity by peddling some non-existent fairy tale concocted by peaceniks and tree huggers. These people are essentially anarchists, anti human and anti establishment, (present company excepted of course).
My British history is weak and maybe you can help me with your theory of why Churchill was rejected after World War II? I’ve asked and read, but have never really come up with a satisfactory answer. The guy was obviously immensely popular, (one would think), after saving the country, etc. Was it simply that he was associated with the Second World War and the British people were attempting to erase a bad memory and everything/everyone associated with it?
I think that America would have made Franklin Roosevelt King if he would have lived.
But seriously, answer the question regarding Churchill. I can’t seem to figure that one out. Seriously, if it wasn’t for him I shudder to think what would have happened. Operation Sea Lion probably would have gone ahead and the United States would not have had a base to launch the invasion of Normandy. I just can’t figure out why the Brits turned on the guy.
I’m not trying to get Tony into trouble but I’d really like to get a reasonable answer.
Brute,
Yes it is a good question and probably you could write a book on the subject.
The simple answer is that Churchill wasn’t as popular at the time as he was later. He did return to being PM in the early 50’s. Also he wasn’t leader of a Conservative government during the war but a National coalition which had very influential members from the British Labour Party too. Apart from Churchill himself many of the old Conservative ruling clique had been discredited by association with Neville Chamberlain and/or had long since resigned from politics, and the Conservative party in 1945 was short of other big names to back up Churchill.
I wasn’t alive at the time but I did ask my father about all this, who had served in the navy, and he said he would have have voted Communist had the local candidate stood a chance of winning. There were in fact two Communist candidates elected in the UK 1945 election. So it was very different era and it is hard to imagine for us now.
Churchill’s Conservative party, although Churchill at one time was a Liberal MP, did not just lose. They lost heavily. There was a general feeling that things had to change after the war. The war had been largely won by everyone not just Churchill and the English upper class. That class system had to go and there had to be what Aussies call a ‘fair go’ for everyone, rich or poor, and regardless of whether they spoke with a Manchester or an Oxbridge accent.
I guess the British Labour Party in 1945 caught the spirit of the times.
PSST!
Pete;
Did you notice my 1624?
It was targeted for the TOPIC of this web-log
What’s it called; the topic?
Climate change?
Some stuff like that!
I await, panting, to hear your infinite wisdom, per the topic of this forum
Bob_FJ,
It may surprise you to learn that the most effective way of melting ice is to warm it. So , yes, I would say the primary reason that Arctic ice is melting is: it is getting too warm! There can, of course, be a secondary effect due to winds pushing the ice packs around, and of course the thinner the ice the more susceptible they are to being moved around from colder waters to perhaps warmer waters. The particular wind and weather patterns of 2007 may indeed be partly responsible for the very rapid decline observed in that year, but not the continual decline than is being observed from one decade to the next.
As Max would no doubt say, it makes sense to me.
TonyN,
Looking at the way my own spam filter works, I was wondering if it might be possible for you to program email addresses into it so that those who can be relied upon to not post too much crap onto your website can by-pass your filter?
You could even add Bob, Max and Brute’s email address too :-)
FAILED FINANCIERS HAVE CLOSE TIES TO GORE, HANSEN AND CARBON TRADING
Great prophets!
Al Gore’s carbon trading business GIM was banked with Lehman Bros. It will be interesting to see how this will play in the future but I suspect that this increases the risk of participating in Carbon trading. Merrill Lynch, was also deeply involved in this business.
Last year Lehman Brothers released a long and highly publicized report about climate change in which they preached about decarbonization, trying to make their investors keep getting high profits from the Kyoto carbon trade scheme and the support of huge public subventions. All that, of course, with the applause of the usual choir of politicians, the entire media and the Greens.
A year ago they couldn’t predict their bankruptcy but were predicting the climate 100 years ahead. Thousands of green militants have been using the Lehman report as a proof of global warming and impending chaos. Lehman Bros said it! sacred words! Its scientific advisor is James Hansen! The report is the basis for policies on climate change in Spain, Argentina and several other countries playing the progress game; it is used by economy professors playing the climatologists; by newspapers editorials, and even by a State Secretary: Lehman Bros, said it!
Lehman Brothers spoke in his report about the climate in 2100 and its economic and financial projections, about climate change costs several decades away. They dared to recommend their investors what they considered a central value of the carbon ton in 50 years from now. Their sources and support references were taken from the IPCC AR4, AR3, and so on. Really impressive.
But even with their high ability to peek into the future, they couldn’t predict their demise one year ahead though there were many people that had been warning about this present crash for years. But Lehman Bros were recommending investments 30, 50, 100 years ahead. Some days, reality imitates fiction. Who was Lehman Bros’ ‘scientific’ adviser on climate? You guessed it, James Hansen, the same guy that wants to drive the world to bankruptcy as he did with Lehman’s Bros.
But the story has some connections with Hansen being the ‘scientific’ adviser to Al Gore, who’s the Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for Climate Protection. As seen in Alliance’s website, the managing Director is none less than: Theodore Roosevelt IV. Managing Director, Lehman Brothers, Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change.
Theodore Roosevelt IV is Managing Director at Lehman Brothers and a member of the Firm’s senior client coverage group, which oversees the Firms client and customer relationships. Mr. Roosevelt is an active conservationist. He is Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Vice Chair of the Wilderness Society, and a Trustee for the American Museum of Natural History, The World Resources Institute, the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming, and a Trustee of Trout Unlimited.
The Lehman reports in two parts can be found on this site ‘Intellectual Capital’. In “The Business of Climate Change ll”, the following acknowledgement is made: “On the scientific side, we are grateful to Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who, at the end of a particularly informative dinner hosted by Ben Cotton of the Man Group, gave generously of his time to clear up a number of scientific questions that had been niggling us. Dr. Peter Collins and Richard Heap of the Royal Society provided valuable input and brought us up to date on the more controversial areas of scientific developments in the domain of global climate change.” H/T John McLean
Lehman’s failure provides a preview of our future if more companies bank their future on the speculative advice of these advocacy scientists, politicians and environmental groups, while ignoring short term realities.
Hi Peter,
This is a bit off-topic, but I hope Tony doesn’t mind.
You wrote, “I guess the British Labour Party in 1945 caught the spirit of the times.”
Not being a historian I have read a bit about post-war Britain and your statement seems correct. But it was not a good time for Britain.
Churchill had promised the Brits “blood, sweat and tears” during WWII.
After WWII the British economy was in a shambles. The cost of the war had been staggering. The cost of the occupation of Germany and a worldwide military presence was stretching an already precarious economy to the brink (until the USA picked up part of the occupation cost). Food rationing was still going on. People were tired of sacrificing.
Labour promised everyone a better life (which, of course, they could not deliver). But it sounded a lot better than more “blood, sweat and tears”.
Germany lost the war. But with Marshall Plan aid, a strong leadership under Konrad Adenauer and the “Wirtschaftswunder”, they won the peace, while Britain drifted further to the left and into economic crisis under Clement Attlee, nationalizing many major industries plus public utilities along the way. Possibly the only lasting positive change from this period was the creation of the National Health Service.
By the time Attlee left office in 1951, Germany had surpassed Britain in productivity.
The empire had already started crumbling and Britain was moving from being a world power to becoming a middle-sized European nation, unsure of its position in the new, post-war world.
It would take the North Sea oilfields and Margaret Thatcher to get Britain’s economy and “can-do spirit” back on track. But that’s another story…
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wisely wrote to Bob_FJ: “It may surprise you to learn that the most effective way of melting ice is to warm it.”
Happens every year, Peter, both in the Arctic and in the Antarctic.
The seasonal change is infinitesimally greater than the long-term trend. Year-to-year variations are also quite high in comparison to the long-term trend. Shifting wind patterns and ocean currents appear to play a role, as do periods of warming, such as we have experienced recently and in the 1930s, but we do not know the real underlying root causes for these long-term trends (as NSIDC have stated).
Is there an AGW “fingerprint” that may explain a part of the most recent warming? NSIDC scientists appear to believe so, while other specialists on Arctic climate (i.e. Dr. Akasufo) are less certain, citing earlier warming periods (before any AGW effect) as reasons for this doubt.
Why do we see no AGW fingerprint in the Antarctic, where sea ice is growing?
Face it, Peter. The Arctic / Antarctic sea ice story is complicated. Bob_FJ has pointed this out to you, as well. To interpret the melting trend in the Arctic as evidence of AGW would be foolhardy. That is not to say that there are not some scientists out there making exactly this claim, but it is a tenuous link at best.
But I really honestly believe you have said about all there is to say on this matter, and you have not been able to convince me either that Dr. Akasufo is incorrect or that we are headed for an “ice free” Arctic summer.
I’ll let Bob_FJ speak for himself, but it does not appear that you have been able to convince him either.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Some climate (excuse me, “weather”) news from the northeastern USA.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&date=2008-09-18_07:31&month=9&year=2008
“A widespread killing frost is in store for the interior of northern New England and upstate New York, where temperatures will settle below 30 degrees. Frost will generally be limited to the typically colder spots from central New York to northern Pennsylvania.”
“The widespread killing frost is arriving one to two weeks earlier than normal. The freeze is also occurring before the official start to autumn, which takes place on Monday at 11:44 a.m. EDT.”
A “widespread killing frost” in the last days of summer?
Where is global warming when we really need it?
Regards,
Max
Some good (?) news. Let’s see if these guys got it right again (so far their track record is much better than that of James Hansen and all his multi-million dollar GISS climate models).
Interestingly, Ed O’Lenic, chief of the operations branch at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is quoted as saying, “it’s generally impossible to come up with accurate forecasts more than a week in advance”. Yet Hansen’s models tell us what is going to happen in the year 2100? Ouch!
Winter weather? Almanac says ‘Numb’s the word!’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080824/ap_on_re_us/farmers__almanacBy Jerry Harkavy, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 24, 5:40 PM ET Lewiston, Maine People worried about the high cost of keeping warm this winter will draw little comfort from the Farmers’ Almanac, which predicts below-average temperatures for most of the USA.
“Numb’s the word,” says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance.
The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder-than-average temperatures this winter, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings.
“This is going to be catastrophic for millions of people,” said almanac editor Peter Geiger.
The almanac predicts above-normal snowfall for the Great Lakes and Midwest, especially during January and February, and above-normal precipitation for the Southwest in December and for the Southeast in January and February. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions will likely have an unusually wet or snowy February, the almanac said.
In contrast, the usually wet Pacific Northwest could be a bit drier than normal in February.
Looking ahead to summer, the almanac foresees near-normal temperatures in most places. But much of the Southwest should prepare for unusually hot weather in June and July, while Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas will get oppressive July heat and humidity.
The almanac — not to be confused with the New Hampshire-based Old Farmer’s Almanac which is 26 years older — attributes its forecasts to reclusive prognosticator Caleb Weatherbee, who uses a secret formula based on sunspots, the position of the planets and the tidal action of the moon.
Weatherbee’s outlook is borne out by e-mails the almanac has received in recent days from readers who have spotted signs of nature they say point to a rough winter, Geiger said. These folklore signs range from an abundance of acorns already on the ground to the frequency of fog in August.
The almanac is at odds with the National Weather Service, whose trends-based outlook calls for warmer than normal weather this winter over much of the country, including Alaska, said Ed O’Lenic, chief of the operations branch at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. The almanac and the weather service are in sync, however, in pointing to a chance of a drier winter in the Northwest.
O’Lenic wouldn’t comment specifically on the almanac’s ability to forecast the weather two years from now, but said it’s generally impossible to come up with accurate forecasts more than a week in advance.
“Of course it’s possible to prepare a forecast with any lead time you like. Whether or nor that forecast has any accuracy or usable skill is another question,” he said.
Geiger sticks to his guns, saying the almanac was on target in the 2008 edition when it said the Northeast and the Great Lakes would have a long, cold winter with lots of snow.
The almanac claims a circulation of about 3 1/2 million. Most are sold to banks, insurance companies and other businesses that give them away. Other versions are sold by retailers in the U.S. and Canada.
Circulation has dropped in recent years, a reflection of a trend that affects many print publications. The almanac has been increasing emphasis on its Web site and also offers a half-hour program that airs weekly on about 90 percent of the nation’s public television stations.
However, some aspects of the almanac never change. The 2009 retail edition has the usual mix of helpful hints, recipes, gardening tips, riddles, anecdotes, corny jokes and inspirational messages.
If there’s a theme to this year’s almanac, it’s environmental awareness, frugality and living a sustainable life. There are articles on water conservation, gas-sipping motor scooters, natural cures and preventions for colds and other illnesses, and on growing food without a yard.
Some good (?) news. Let’s see if these guys got it right again (so far their track record is much better than that of James Hansen and all his multi-million dollar GISS climate models).
Interestingly, Ed O’Lenic, chief of the operations branch at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is quoted as saying, “it’s generally impossible to come up with accurate forecasts more than a week in advance”. Yet Hansen’s models tell us what is going to happen in the year 2100? Ouch!
Winter weather? Almanac says ‘Numb’s the word!’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080824/ap_on_re_us/farmers__almanacBy Jerry Harkavy, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 24, 5:40 PM ET Lewiston, Maine People worried about the high cost of keeping warm this winter will draw little comfort from the Farmers’ Almanac, which predicts below-average temperatures for most of the USA.
“Numb’s the word,” says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance.
The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder-than-average temperatures this winter, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings.
“This is going to be catastrophic for millions of people,” said almanac editor Peter Geiger.
The almanac predicts above-normal snowfall for the Great Lakes and Midwest, especially during January and February, and above-normal precipitation for the Southwest in December and for the Southeast in January and February. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions will likely have an unusually wet or snowy February, the almanac said.
In contrast, the usually wet Pacific Northwest could be a bit drier than normal in February.
Looking ahead to summer, the almanac foresees near-normal temperatures in most places. But much of the Southwest should prepare for unusually hot weather in June and July, while Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas will get oppressive July heat and humidity.
The almanac — not to be confused with the New Hampshire-based Old Farmer’s Almanac which is 26 years older — attributes its forecasts to reclusive prognosticator Caleb Weatherbee, who uses a secret formula based on sunspots, the position of the planets and the tidal action of the moon.
Weatherbee’s outlook is borne out by e-mails the almanac has received in recent days from readers who have spotted signs of nature they say point to a rough winter, Geiger said. These folklore signs range from an abundance of acorns already on the ground to the frequency of fog in August.
The almanac is at odds with the National Weather Service, whose trends-based outlook calls for warmer than normal weather this winter over much of the country, including Alaska, said Ed O’Lenic, chief of the operations branch at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. The almanac and the weather service are in sync, however, in pointing to a chance of a drier winter in the Northwest.
O’Lenic wouldn’t comment specifically on the almanac’s ability to forecast the weather two years from now, but said it’s generally impossible to come up with accurate forecasts more than a week in advance.
“Of course it’s possible to prepare a forecast with any lead time you like. Whether or nor that forecast has any accuracy or usable skill is another question,” he said.
Geiger sticks to his guns, saying the almanac was on target in the 2008 edition when it said the Northeast and the Great Lakes would have a long, cold winter with lots of snow.
The almanac claims a circulation of about 3 1/2 million. Most are sold to banks, insurance companies and other businesses that give them away. Other versions are sold by retailers in the U.S. and Canada.
Circulation has dropped in recent years, a reflection of a trend that affects many print publications. The almanac has been increasing emphasis on its Web site and also offers a half-hour program that airs weekly on about 90 percent of the nation’s public television stations.
However, some aspects of the almanac never change. The 2009 retail edition has the usual mix of helpful hints, recipes, gardening tips, riddles, anecdotes, corny jokes and inspirational messages.
If there’s a theme to this year’s almanac, it’s environmental awareness, frugality and living a sustainable life. There are articles on water conservation, gas-sipping motor scooters, natural cures and preventions for colds and other illnesses, and on growing food without a yard.
Max,
Are you holding up the German economy as something close to a model for all other industrialised countries to follow? If so we might be able to agree on something. They have chosen a sensible middle way between socialism and capitalism. They pretty much decided after the end of the war what the mix should be and they haven’t gone in for much chopping and changing since. The last I heard universities were still still free there. Whereas they haven’t been free in the UK since Mrs T’s time.
Ironically, in a way it was easier for Germany to recover from the war. Whereas the UK had to repay war debts and maintain its armed forces they didn’t have that burden. Also the UK could have chosen to spend its money slightly more wisely than on nuclear weapons and missile systems.
Mrs Thatcher may be a darling of the political right but her legacy will probably lead to the break up on the UK. Under her government, UK manufacturing industry was sarificed, some would say specifically to disable the power of the British unions. There is no UK motor industry left. Even if you buy a Rolls Royce, you are really getting a BMW. The Queen Mary liner couldn’t be built in the UK. It was built in France. All, or most of, the shipyards had been closed down under Mrs T’s government.
There has been a attitude in the UK, in recent years, that you don’t need any manufacturing industry. Everyone can get rich buying and selling ever more expensive houses to each other! Well, we’ll see who suffers more in the coming recession/depression. The Brits or the Germans.