People talkin #5

Time for another open thread — the place to witter on about climate change science, policy and politics, or the sounds of seals in the night. Off topic comments from other threads will be moved here.

67 thoughts on “People talkin #5”

  1. Thanks for the link, Macro – an informative article on how geophysics progresses by testing multiple sets of observations against each other to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and improve our understanding of complex processes.

    1. Yes it is! It is a nice example of good science – when you get an unexpected result. Good collaboration and a willingness to look at all angles. Well worth the read.

    1. Very interesting Manfred. Of course if you had READ the article I referred to you would have noted that a number of studies were done on the data sets that contained a number of ERRORS. If you were to investigate further you would also note this WARNING regarding recent ARGO data:
      http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
      in particular the statement:
      “The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend”

      1. Well it worse than that Macro, there are a large number of ARGO floats that have developed a 2nd pressure sensor float problem, which induces a cool bias in the readings. The XBT’s warm bias, hasn’t been adequately sorted out yet either.

        The ARGO system will be awesome once all the teething problems are remedied, but that won’t stop the desperate clinging to short-term trends on a long-term trend of ocean warming.

        As for Douglass, he’s the same guy who thinks the tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a fingerprint of human-caused global warming, so I wouldn’t place much confidence in his results. If you read the paper by Douglass you will see he ignores Von Shuckmanns’ results which includes the ocean below 2000 mtrs and shows a warming trend (shock!, horror!) and he claims it’s an outlier!. Yes it’s an outlier because it’s the only one that includes the deep ocean!.

        If I lost a sock, I wouldn’t just look in the washing machine, would you?

        1. “Well it worse than that Macro, there are a large number of ARGO floats that have developed a 2nd pressure sensor float problem, which induces a cool bias in the readings. The XBT’s warm bias, hasn’t been adequately sorted out yet either.”
          Yes it was that very fact, and the really good science that follows it, that I referred Manfried too.
          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
          I am aware that Doglass is a standard reference for the contrarian bandwagon. As I pointed out to Manfried that paper is based on flawed data. Indeed the ARGO web site now specifically warns against using the recent data until more reliable data is to hand.
          quote
          “Argo data must also have high accuracy and minimal systematic errors. Therefore, a high priority for Argo is to continue work aimed at identifying and correcting pressure measurement errors, especially those with systematic impacts.”

          1. Macro, I was referring to a separate issue, a fault in the druck pressure sensor which may affect up to a third of all floats deployed over a 2 year period. It was identified last year. So that’s two problems with the pressure sensors, not just the one that suckered Josh Willis.

            I know that several groups were trying to work through all the data to identify which floats were screwy, in the hope that the bias could be removed via re-analysis, but don’t know what the state of play is currently. I think it’s going to take some time though.

            As for the apparent slow-down of OHC, I suspect it is real, but not as significant as the current (problematic) data indicate. Much of the heat is disappearing down to the abyssal depths according to some recent papers.

            And, of course, we saw in the recent Climate Show episode what James Hansens thinks is going on, and his scenario is way more scary!

            1. Wow, where to start again?
              OK, yes some early floats had problems (pre-2005) and no that doesn’t mean the ARGO data can’t be used. Josh Willis has had plenty to say on this, read up on it.
              And the only folk who appear to be using the wrong data are those claiming the OHC is increasing in any way.
              See Josh’s comments here (talking to Kevin Trenberth):
              http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/further-feedback-from-kevin-trenberth-and-feedback-from-josh-willis-on-the-ucar-press-release/

              Hi Kevin,

              I’m not sure why you think that the analysis methods of recent ocean heat content estimates are not robust. Since about 2005, most any analysis method that makes use of the Argo data should get approximately the same answer, which is that there is little net warming over this period.

              And later on:

              In the early part, however, the von Schuckmann analysis is problematic because it definitely contains some Argo data that still had pressure biases, and because they relied on a climatological background field that was probably too cold. Because the early part of the Argo record (pre-2005) has large gaps, their analysis relaxes toward the cooler climatology in the early part of the record. This has the potential to make the global trend appear larger than it may actually be.

              It’s a very interesting and useful discussion. I suggest you read it all. What is clear is that Josh Willis believes the data is robust.

            2. Manfred-

              “What is clear is that Josh Willis believes the data is robust”

              Yes, and he’s been similarly cocksure before hasn’t he? See Macro’s link.

            3. Much of the heat is disappearing down to the abyssal depths

              Of course nobody has shown yet how it’s possible for this to happen without the heat going through the top 700m or so.

            4. Yes, and he’s been similarly cocksure before hasn’t he? See Macro’s link.

              Ah well, if you think he’s not up to the job you should contact NASA, giving reasons.
              Please note that it was Josh himself who found the initial errors. The ARGO network was put in place specifically because it’s the best way to measure global warming. The only reason you don’t like it, it seems, is that it’s producing the “wrong” answer.

            5. Manfred –

              Of course nobody has shown yet how it’s possible for this to happen without the heat going through the top 700m or so

              I don’t know any rational person who would suggest it doesn’t. Maybe you don’t have a very good idea of how this works? Tell me how you think heat reaches the abyssal depths and then I can set you straight.

            6. By the way, why has nobody commented on the fact that K&D does a check using Hadley, and finds the same result? If ARGO is wrong, is Hadley too?
              See Fig 1.
              What’s fascinating about you folk is your complete denial of the scientific truth. K&D is only three pages long. It simply uses NASA’s ARGO data to calculate a trend. It then summarizes this trend against the other peer-reviewed literature, showing that the ARGO trend is valid, with only one outlier, von Schuckmann. Apart from von Schuckmann, they all show cooling.
              The mystery is cleared up by Josh’s comment that von Schuckmann used the bad pre-2005 data.
              Come on people, surely this is simple enough? All the datasets show a reduction in OHC. But how can the oceans rid themselves of heat so easily? If there is an energy imbalance, the energy can’t escape, more energy enters the system than leaves it, hence the warming. But ARGO shows it is escaping.

            7. Manfred

              Please note that it was Josh himself who found the initial errors.

              Haven’t read Macro’s link have you? Willis was told there was a problem with his data, but refused to listen until the spurious ‘day after tomorrow’ cooling showed up in his analysis. Much like he’s refusing to listen now.

              We’ll have to see how that plays out, but I’m sure neither you nor Pielke Snr are going to like the result. Actually Pielke Snr probably doesn’t give a rat’s ass, it might be an attention seeking thing with him.

            8. Manfred –

              What’s fascinating about you folk is your complete denial of the scientific truth

              Too funny!.

            9. @DW: Still see no credible refutation of K&D. If ARGO is wrong, why does Hadley show a similar cooling? If ARGO is right, why has the OHC decreased? Under energy imbalance conditions, it must necessarily rise, otherwise you’re left with the uncomfortable impression that the oceans can rid themselves very easily of excess heat, which is exactly what they’re doing.

        1. Manfred –

          I think you’re missing the point. Prof. Pielke Snr has published several papers on OHC

          You’re well behind the times if you’re relying on ol’ Pielke snr. Been over all his nonsense at skepticalscience last year. And a new paper on the issue is soon to be published, it’s from Kevin Trenberth. It’s interesting, I’ll say that much.

          If you’re going to rely on denier memes, at least try to make them recent fabrications.

          1. @DW: In one sentence, what is the error with Pielke’s assertion that OHC is the main metric of global warming? Think carefully, Pielke is in complete agreement with Hansen on this one (see hansen 2005), and NASA too, since they implemented ARGO in the first place.

            1. Manfred –

              In one sentence, what is the error with Pielke’s assertion that OHC is the main metric of global warming?

              Why does he suggest global cooling based on a short term trend, and a faulty dataset? Especially when the atmosphere continues to get warmer and all the ice is fast disappearing. That’s what I would like to know.

            2. Why does he suggest global cooling based on a short term trend, and a faulty dataset?

              Well, if you’d read the papers he wrote, you’d understand. His point is very clear, and remains uncontested. If you measure the OHC in Joules at time t0, then later at time t1, then the difference in OHC in Joules determines your energy balance. No need to invoke fluxes (notoriously difficult to measure) or trends or anything else. It’s a simple, physics based approach to the problem, and he’s right. Nobody has managed to raise any objection to this approach.
              If the OHC is X, and a few years later it’s Y, then if X>Y, the ocean has lost heat. Therefore the energy balance is not the constant 0.85W/m2 Hansen says it is (I see he’s had to lower it to 0.59W/m2 recently). Rather, it’s negative.
              Now, you claim the dataset is faulty. I’ve pointed out very clearly above why it’s not.

            3. Manfred –

              Well, if you’d read the papers he wrote, you’d understand. His point is very clear, and remains uncontested

              After Pielke’s performance at Skeptical science, I don’t have a great deal of regard for what he says. Remember he is only looking at the top 700 mtrs of ocean the bulk of the world’s ocean are much deeper than 700 mtrs. Von Shuckman’s analysis disagrees with both Pielke and Douglas and his measurements are down to 2000 mtrs.

              And regardless, as stated before this is a short timeframe and the dataset is problematic. That’s why Seabird electronics is spending considerable time and expense to resolve the pressure sensor problem.

              Purkey and Johnson 2010, a ship-based survey, finds a whole lotta warming down at the abyssal depths. Their analysis stops at the year 2000. Be interesting to see an update, covering the ARGO period.

        2. Manfred this is all old hat for me. Like I said we went over this in agonizing detail at Skeptical science last year. Pielke Snr even showed up and was typically evasive when the hard questions were put to him.

          AFAIK only minor progress has been made of resolving the issue, but insinuations of global cooling are just that.

        3. @DW: Still see no credible refutation of K&D. If ARGO is wrong

          ARGO is problematic. Nothing new here, Spencer & Christy did the same thing with the MSU satellites, claimed they showed global cooling, yada, yada, and we know how that all turned out.

          And you’ve already been pointed to an embarrassing gaffe made by Josh Willis, based on earlier ARGO data. Why do you think it is suddenly infallible? Especially given the ongoing pressure sensor problem.

          If ARGO is right, why has the OHC decreased?

          Who knows, but we’re only talking about the top 700 mtrs, what about the rest?

          you’re left with the uncomfortable impression that the oceans can rid themselves very easily of excess heat, which is exactly what they’re doing.

          Yeah right, and putting aside physics, we just haven’t noticed all that excess heat in the atmosphere, why exactly?

      3. @Macro: Notice also in the K&D paper that the ARGO data was supplied by Josh Willis himself. He is the expert on ARGO, he originally identified the errors in the pre-2005 data, and has accounted for them.

  3. Come back with any precedents to the continental-scale events I’ve actually referred to – which I guarantee you won’t find

    I really can find little structure or sense in your ranting, but I think I’ve found something that resembles a coherent question:

    Here’s an exercise for you – try checking out what those in the know think led to Australia’s ‘routine’ record-breaking flooding in 2010 and early 2011. Informed people – such as the local Bureau of Meteorology – point to a series of unprecedented rainfall events.

    I’ve done so, and I’ll repeat the two sources I quoted earlier, since you’ve completely ignored them.
    1) The Australian Climate Commissioner Will Steffen said after an enquiry that the floods were not the result of climate change. Specifically, “The floods across eastern Australia in 2010 and early 2011 were the consequence of a very strong La Nina event and not the result of climate change”
    2) Prof Neville Nicholls at Monash University and president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society said the floods were not due to climate change but due to the La Nina.

    Now, it seems to me that Will Steffen is hardly a climate change skeptic. So for him to come out and state clearly that the floods had nothing to do with climate change is significant. You are free of course to disagree, but to date I see no reason to accept anything you say.

    But now you have a problem with your argument. We know the floods were not caused by climate change (even Will Steffen says so). So even if there were no precedents, the current floods still cannot be used to support climate change.

    As an aside, there are of course precedents.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/floodsum_1890.shtml
    Check out 1893. I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to look up 1974, and read up on 1841. For bonus points, you can marry up the La Ninas with the events as well.

    1. Of course, what the full report says is a great deal more nuanced than Manfred would have you believe. The whole section is interesting in and of itself. Here’s something else the report says:

      “This additional warmth in the upper ocean – SSTs in the northern Australian region are currently at or near record levels and are much warmer for this La Niña event than for previous strong La Niña events (Figure 24) – may possibly have enhanced precipitation and led to an even more intense precipitation event than would otherwise have occurred, although such enhancement has yet to be demonstrated.

      1. “may possibly have enhanced…”, “although such enhancement has yet to be demonstrated.”
        Hmm, not particularly convincing, compared with the statement that climate change didn’t cause the floods.

    2. Manfred – Now, it seems to me that Will Steffen is hardly a climate change skeptic

      If that is actually what he said, than that is indeed sad. It shows an appalling level of understanding.

      As Kevin Trenberth has stated repeatedly (see the Climate Show a couple of episodes back) there is an extra 4% water vapour lurking around in the atmosphere as a result of the warmer global temperature (the AGW bit). It will affect every weather event on Earth, there’s no getting around it, every weather event will be influenced by global warming, so there’s always a human-induced aspect now.

      Second; ENSO has intensified in the last century. This is anomalous in the last 1000 years, and yes that includes the Medieval Warm(ish) Period. This is rise in intensity and frequency is tied to the mean temperature state of the tropical Pacific, which was cold in the Medieval Warm(ish) Period, but is now much warmer. In fact it has warmed by 0.4°C in the last century. We have not only the surface temperature data that record this, but also soft corals in the Western Tropical Pacific which demonstrate the shoaling of the thermocline in the last part of the 20 century.

      Third; extreme precipitation events are expected to increase in response to global warming – this is hardly contentious, there’s simply more water suspended aloft. This increase is amply demonstrated in climate models, and also in very recent studies that look at the observational record of the last few decades. The rise in extreme precipitation around the world is quite spectacular.

      Fourth; As far as I’m aware, no peer-reviewed studies have looked at the unprecedented Queensland flooding, so Will Steffen appears to be talking out of his backside.

      If, on the other hand, he was talking about attributing single events to global warming he may have a point, but your phrase, as above, seems a categorical denial.

    3. Shorter Manfred: I have two straws, and I’m clinging to them.

      As for me: as Gareth and DW above; how any one could categorically claim sole attribution for the La Nina, any more than they could for AGW, is beyond comprehension, for the reasons they give – if that’s in fact what is happening. Bill McKibben said it years ago in the End of Nature – like it or not, we now shape the world.

      You concede that the La Nina did not cause the elevated SSTs around Australia, then?

      We’re still waiting on your precedents for what happened in Grantham and Toowoomba. You’re the person snorting and claiming it was nothing more than a flash flood. Yep, and Japan was hit by a large wave recently. Please tell us the last time there was anything like the recent concatenation of bizarre precipitation-related weather events globally.

      Incidentally, on the point you leapt in on – if all this extra atmospheric moisture means it rains a hell of a lot, but the temperature is around zero, what happens? Does it snow more in relatively cool or relatively warm winters?

      On the same theme – Tom Tomorrow

      1. You concede that the La Nina did not cause the elevated SSTs around Australia, then?

        Why would I concede something that is false? La Ninas always cause elevated SSTs around Australia, almost by definition.

        As for precedents, I’ve given you several. To date, you’ve made no comments on them.

  4. @all of you
    Good grief, this is such a jumbled mish-mash of speculation and nonsense I really don’t know where to start. You throw out insinuations and wild statements with gay abandon, and then tell everyone else to prove them wrong. It’s a bit like debating quantum mechanics with primary school kids.

    OK, from all the garbage I’ll address just one point: are you really saying that the La Nina was caused by AGW? I’m picking this theme up among the dross. By extension, are you then claiming that this La Nina was stronger than any other we’ve seen in the 20th century? Think carefully before you answer.

    DW states categorically that ENSO event have increased in intensity and frequency over the last 100 years, as compared with the last 1000 years, including the MWP (which of course started more than 1000 years ago).

    References please?

          1. Actually I understood quite a bit. Now here is your problem: you state that AGW is affecting ENSO. But now you are at odds with the Met Office in the UK.

            See here, and note about the 2:00 minute mark: “Is La Nina linked to climate change?”
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzPqdyyZLU

            When we run our climate models into the future, with increasing levels of greenhouse gases, then there are no consistent changes in the El Nino/La Nina cycles.
            -Adam Scaife, Senor Climate Scientist

            1. Watched the video, don’t know exactly what you think contradicts what I have written. The increased frequency and intensity of ENSO has already been observed.

              Clear enough?

              Model projections are equivocal about further change, yup, already knew that.

    2. Manfred –

      DW states categorically that ENSO event have increased in intensity and frequency over the last 100 years, as compared with the last 1000 years, including the MWP (which of course started more than 1000 years ago) References please?

      I’ll leave that as an exercise for you. I’m writing a post on it shortly for another blog. I’ll link to it if you’re trolling this blog in a week or two.

      And yes, I’m also writing a few articles about extreme precipitation (and ocean acidification too). You’ll be surprised at the vast amount of scientific literature that exists outside of denier blogs.

      1. I’ll leave that as an exercise for you.

        Why thank you, that’s convincing.

        You’ll be surprised at the vast amount of scientific literature that exists outside of denier blogs.

        Really? I had no idea.

    3. Manfred –

      I’ll address just one point: are you really saying that the La Nina was caused by AGW?

      No, keep up! Human fossil fuel emissions are causing the oceans to warm. The intensity of ENSO (La Nina & El Nino) is tied to the mean temperature state of the equatorial Pacific (didn’t I already make that abundantly clear?)

      In the Medieval Warm(ish) Period the equatorial Pacific was cold – therefore ENSO frequency/intensity was reduced. That’s what climate proxies reveal.

      Today we have warmed the oceans, and this is being reflected in the surge in ENSO activity that began in the early 20th Century. Even in the cool ocean state, large swings have occurred, but they are very,very rare.

      ENSO seems to have existed for a very,very long time, and the very latest research shows it dates back to the Pliocene (contradicting some earlier work on the subject) So by making the tropical Pacific warm humans have contributed to the ramping up of La NIna and El Nino – so yes another human fingerprint in the unprecedented Queensland floods.

      1. Human fossil fuel emissions are causing the oceans to warm.

        Except, of course, this century, but that’s another topic.

        and this is being reflected in the surge in ENSO activity that began in the early 20th Century.

        So, this began before we apparently warmed the atmosphere? Interesting.

        Today we have warmed the oceans

        Proof please, showing that it’s impossible for, say, reduced cloud cover to have warmed the oceans?
        Considering that we don’t know what causes ENSO cycles, it seems a bit premature to blame humans for any changes in ENSO patterns. After all, we know that the earth has been warming since the LIA. We also know we didn’t cause that. So linking ENSO to a warming world, and then blaming humans is spurious at best.
        Now, it’s possible that we have casued a recent acceleration in the warming that was happening already, but first we have to show evidence of this acceleration.
        There was a brief burst in the period 1976-2000, but since then we’ve gone kinda flat. The period 1910-1940 showed a similar trend, so the 1976-2000 rate was nothing out of the ordinary. According to the IPCC the 1910-1940 event happened before humans could have had an effect (1950 being the generally accepted start date. Hansen uses 1975 fom time to time).
        I’ll be interested to read your blog post though, as I’m sure you’ll address these issues.

        1. Manfred

          Proof please, showing that it’s impossible for, say, reduced cloud cover to have warmed the oceans?

          Yup, it becoming more evident that you don’t understand science, science doesn’t deal in absolutes. And you have that ass-backwards too.

          Considering that we don’t know what causes ENSO cycles, it seems a bit premature to blame humans for any changes in ENSO patterns.

          You mean your denier blog sources haven’t addressed this? Not surprising facts are often inconvenient.

          Now, it’s possible that we have casued a recent acceleration in the warming that was happening already, but first we have to show evidence of this acceleration

          Not just possible, observed in the temperature records

          1. Yup, it becoming more evident that you don’t understand science, science doesn’t deal in absolutes.

            Science does, in fact, deal in absolutes. However, in this particular field, climate science, the absolutes are simply not well known. Therefore there is necessarily more conjecture and arm-waving than in most disciplines.
            But my point was that even a small variation in cloud cover could have a large impact in incoming solar radiation flux, no?

  5. On the subject of the Queensland floods, Prof. Pielke Jnr expresses it very succinctly:
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/brisbane-floods-in-historical-context.html
    If you wish to argue your point that AGW caused the recent floods, I suggest you take it up with him too, as well as Will Steffen, who apparently talks out of his backside, according to DW.

    But since DW’s sole reason for claiming the interesting oratory style exhibited by the good Doctor is that there are as yet no peer-reviewed studies of the floods, why is he so happy himself to attribute the floods to AGW? I would have thought he should have waited himself before expressing such a strong opinion.

    1. Manfred –

      But since DW’s sole reason for claiming the interesting oratory style exhibited by the good Doctor is that there are as yet no peer-reviewed studies of the floods, why is he so happy himself to attribute the floods to AGW?

      Yeah, why would I expect jumping off cliff to be painful simply because that’s the experience of everyone that’s done it before?

  6. Note for Manfred: Please read Hot Topic’s comment policy, in particular bullet points three and four. I don’t want to stifle the discussion you’re having, but a couple of your recent comments are sailing very close to my line.

    1. I’m not sure what you mean. Can you provide some samples of these behaviours please, that are not exhibited by your other commenters?

  8. My home state hits 18% windpower!

    MOST electricity made in SA is from natural gas and coal, but wind has grown from zero to 18 per cent.

    While we are investing in other sources of renewable energy, such as geothermal, solar, biomass, biodiesel and wave power, wind really blows everything else out of the water.

    The installed wind capacity is 1018MW. RenewablesSA Commissioner Tim O’Loughlin says solar (photovoltaics) is about 100MW, “installed or about to be installed”. That’s up from 27.5MW in November last year.

    But the green scene is about to get a whole lot more interesting. Mr O’Loughlin says biomass is promising, solar is becoming more competitive, geothermal is “very exciting” and wave power is a big unknown.

    He’s looking forward to the day when Professor Ross Garnaut’s price on carbon gives renewable energy a competitive advantage over fossil fuels, especially coal.

    Amen to the last bit! But the polling on this is absolutely appalling; must we inevitably shuffle along behind our American brethren down the pickled path to The Stupid? Look, something shiny!…

    (For the record, I have a 1 kW PV array and we’re on 100% wind for any excess. The wind tariff is an extra 5c per)

    The state’s efforts get a nod from Flannery.

    1. Good to see Bill
      Interesting to see the pressure to drop the Renewable Energy Target carrot in favour of the carbon pricing stick. One benefit of the Renewable Obligation Certificates here in the UK is that it promotes investment in additional generator plant that will not only reduce the fossil fuel generation, but also reduce the spot price on the market for that fossil fuel generation. A combination that owners of existing profitable plant don’t like very much.
      Our ROC maintains headroom for the targets, preserving confidence in the returns for ROCs. Is not so generous however that all of the big generators (‘the big six’) bother to meet their obligation. Either these blue chip firms are not interested in massive profits, or the NIMBY claims of ROC being excessively generous are cobblers, hard to countenance I know!

  10. Just heard the news about a couple of more biggies in Christchurch Gareth.
    Buildings down and people injured. Trust you and yours and all the other Hot Topicans in the area are all ok.
    Thoughts with you all down there again at this time.

    1. HT’s extended family all well. Sumner and Redcliffs people are getting very fed up indeed. Quite dramatic rockfalls and house damage there, plus a lot of silt in liquefaction prone parts of the city. It would be nice if it was over…

  11. Interesting new piece on ‘Global-weirding’ and the climate/extreme weather events (shall we just call them EWEs, and try to keep a lid on the sheep jokes?) over at the Guardian.

    I’m just making my way through the Oxfam ‘Time’s Bitter Flood‘ report that’s referenced in the article; an interesting read. Anyone aware of discussion? I apologise if there’s been any locally and I’ve missed it; work’s been a bit hectic of late!

    1. That is encouraging, Macro.
      I have a plan in mind, that if domestic electricity prices were lowered we would be able to phase out the use of wood and coal for home-heating. I think there would need to be a 2-tiered rate so that use didn’t become excessive – so much per year at a lower rate, and then a higher rate on the excess. Schools and hospitals should be included.

      I am also thinking – wouldn’t be cool if a whole community could go off-grid? If just one town in NZ would do it that may become the impetus for more to follow. My town has only 250ish residents, I’m sure we could accomplish that if we had the collective will. How many wind turbines would we need? Maybe we could get sponsorship to help with solar panels.

  13. Gareth,’

    just asking.. did you or John or DC (I don’t recall ever reading about this here or there) pick up a dodgy documented cooney/ebell link? If not, or even lightly interested in doing so, it will likely emerge in an RM series of blogs currently underway.. say 2-to-3 weeks on.. just look in as and when you can..

Leave a Reply