Britain "running out of wind":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8545306/Wind-farms-Britain-is-running-out-of-wind.html

The story features this interesting snippet:

The Atlantic jet stream brings warm, wet weather to the UK and Europe from the south-west. If it is “blocked” as a result of changes in solar activity, cold air flows across Britain from the east.
One such period of prolonged blocking of the jet stream is thought to have occurred between 1645 and 1715, when Britain experienced a mini ice age, yet also spells of hot, dry summer weather.

Prof Lockwood said solar activity was especially low during this period, adding that current levels of sun-spot activity were continuing to decline. “We reached a high point of solar activity in 1985,” he said.
“Since then, it has been declining. We are now halfway back to the levels seen during the Maunder Minimum. The probability is that that decline will continue for the next 40 years.”

It's the Sun wot does it!

The alarmists are cranking up the shrillometer to full volume ahead of the latest jamboree in Bonn next week:

Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink

An interesting post over at Climate etc.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/29/un-talks-and-power-politics-its-not-about-the-temperature/

And the bits I thought worth noting:

Our program – the Global Climate Change Initiative – is built on three pillars:

• First, clean energy, to help put devcloping countries on a low-carbon path, decrease pollution globally, bolster international energy security by strengthening reliance on domestic and renewable resources and create increased trade and investment in clean technologies and new opportunities for U.S. business and workers;

• Second, sustainable landscapes, which entails conserving forests, fostering sustainable land management, and combating illegal logging around the world. We do this not only to limit climate change, but also to preserve the home of at least 80 percent of the world’s terrestrial species. including 70 percent of plants identified as having anti·cancer characteristics; and

• Third, adaptation, which mcans building resilience against cxtreme weather events to reduce the risk of damage, loss of life and broader instability that can result from extreme weather and climate events, such as droughts, floods, and extreme storms. Whatever your views on climate change, the United States needs to – and always docs – stand ready to help countries victimized by such events. It is who we are, and it is in our own interest to do these things. It is part of why people around the world  look with favor on America. Likewise, helping countries take action in advance that reduces damage from extreme events makes good sense and is cost-effective: the World Bank Eslimates that every dollar spent on disaster preparedness saves $7 in disaster response.

JC’s comments

First, the three pillars of the U.S. Global Climate Initiative are examples of robust, no/low regret policy options.  As I have argued previously, emissions stabilization target is not a robust policy options.  I view the U.S. Initiative as positive, and this is something that I can certainly support.....

....

Message to climate scientists (especially in the U.S.):  now that the UNFCCC treaties do not seem to be desired by even the most progressive U.S. administration in recent (and likely future) decade, please rethink your allegiance to the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology.  Let’s get back to doing climate science as it should be done: challenging every aspect of the climate science to broaden and deepen our understanding of the climate system and the full range of possible future climate scenarios associated with both natural climate variability and anthropogenically forced climate change.   And supporting policy makers in developing and assessing a broad range of robust, no/low regrets policy options.

SNP appointed advisor says

Prof Kay went on to argue the SNP's claim on revenue from the vast wealth of North Sea oil was "not straightforward", adding that offshore wind power was "inherently unprofitable".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13588213

There's a good piece by Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times today (paywalled) which outlines the economically destructive nature of the UK's Climate Change Act and Dave's green government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/richardblack/

Richard Black's on the oceanic acid trip too.

Roll up rollup, new scare to keep you awake at night. Well an old one pulled out of the hat again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/global-warming-threat-to-oceans

Its just a pity (but ignored of course) that real life data shows otherwise.

http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf

Interesting reading on Judy Curry's blog: The futility of carbon reduction?

The discussion is about how much actual benefit in terms of temperature reduction is achieved by green house gas reduction efforts.

One answer: If the U.K. would shut down completely and bring emissions to ZERO tomorrow, by the year 2100, global temperature would be reduced by 0.025 degrees C.

> [BH adds: Only works for fixed IP addresses]

Pedantically, that's not really true. Many of those who comment here must leave their routers running 24/7 and that means that their IP address is very likely to persist over a period (typically days) in which both they leave a comment here and fire off a 'fairly unpleasant' email to someone with a thin skin.

But my point was that, in the absence of IP address identity, there is no prima facie evidence that any of your commenters sent email that has been found objectionable. In that situation, your scolding is analogous to that of Nurse accusing blog authors and readers of harassing 'climate scientists' with FOIA requests on the basis of hearsay.

During Obama's visit, there was a joint UK-US statement on "higher education, science, and innovation collaboration":
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2011/05/uk-us-higher-education-science-and-innovation-collaboration-64126

The concluding sentence of that looks highly important: "They [Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama] emphasised the importance of data sharing and open science data policies that support climate research and modelling."

Having that should be useful, if scientists balk at releasing data.