Click on the chart above to see it in full size. The smallest scale is the one at the bottom (labeled (1)). Each scale above that one represents 10x the range of the scale below it.

When you hear news reports about “detectable radiation that is above normally accepted limits” around the heavily damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex in Japan, note that the “limits” all pretty much occur on scales 1 and 2. You have to get up to scale 4 (1000x the levels on scale 1) before you start seeing health problems.

This has been a public service messages.  ..bruce w..

Robert Vacca wrote his work The Coming Dark Age back  in the eco-70s. His basic premise was that our technological and logistical infrastructure was becoming so complex and inter-dependent that a major failure somewhere would trigger a domino effect, causing civilization to grind to a halt. Vacca underestimated the ability of complex systems — particularly those with humans involved — to adapt and work around failures.

But now we face blackouts that are intended, all in the name of “renewable energy”. This from England:

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that.

“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.

The sheer idiocy here is breathtaking, as well as the rampant opportunities for abuse, corruption, and social engineering (but I repeat myself). To see a 21st Century world power deliberately embrace aspects of a third-world lifestyle boggles the mind. Let this be a lesson to us all.  ..bruce w..

Let me show you where my tooth chipped.

Yes, Dennis Kusinich is suing the House of Representatives Cafeteria for $150,000 because he bit into an unpitted olive:

The Cleveland Democratic congressman’s lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages from companies that operate the Longworth House Office Building’s cafeteria.

It says he bought the suspicious sandwich wrap “on or about April 17, 2008,” and eating it caused ”permanent dental and oral injuries requiring multiple surgical and dental procedures.”

“Said sandwich wrap was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption in that it was presented to contain pitted olives, yet unknown to plaintiff, contained an unpitted olive or olives which plaintiff did not reasonably expect to be in the food prepared for him, and could not visually detect prior to consumption,” the lawsuit said.

Gotta be careful about those “suspicious sandwich warps”. And I can’t understand the fuss — wouldn’t an unpitted olive be more natural and organic than a pitted one? For those of you who like to read lawsuit filings, here it is (PDF).

In more serious news, Megan McArdle — my favorite 6′+ female libertarian economist — has a perspective on last nights SOTU that didn’t occur to me but that I agree with:

While watching the speech, I tweeted that “Obama sounds remarkably similar to the CEOs I used to listen to on earnings calls: the ones with mediocre EPS and a failing business model.”  This wasn’t a crack at Obama, or Democrats; it was a reaction to the content.  And after watching the responses, the impression lingers–indeed, maybe it’s strengthened. . . .

So what do those CEOs do?  They spend a lot of time talking about their company’s proud history, even if that history only stretches back a few years. They lavish extravagant praise on their awesome, dedicated workforce.  And they deftly avoid talking about the big problems, for which they have no solutions, by talking about strategic areas for potential growth (“green jobs”), and going over a laundry list of new initiatives that do nothing to solve any of the core problems.  When they are forced to talk about the core problems–and if the company is big enough to attract analyst coverage, they will rudely draw his attention to the problematic areas on the financial statements during the Q&A–he responds in vague generalities that restate the problem as if doing so constituted a solution. . . .

Go read the whole thing.

Speaking of lots of blowing air that does no good, wind power as “green energy” is, all things considered, pretty worthless. It is inconsistent, unreliable, unprofitable, and damaging to the environment. Windmills were nice for grinding grain, but farmers and millers always kept mules, horses, and young children around for all the times the wind didn’t blow. Anyway, the Daily Bayonet has some of the latest wind power failures, including an administrative court ruling rejected Pacific Gas & Electric’s proposal to buy a wind farm for $900 million:

In December 2009, PG&E agreed to buy and operate Iberdrola’s 246 MW facility for about $900 million. It would have been the first wind farm to be owned by PG&E.

The December administrative law judge decision read in part, “We reject the application because we find that the Manzana Wind Project is not cost-competitive and poses unacceptable risks to ratepayers. We find that the proposed cost of the Manzana Wind Project is significantly higher than other resources PG&E can procure to meet its RPS program goal. Moreover, it will subject the ratepayers to unacceptable risks due to potential cost increases resulting from project under-performance, less than forecasted project life, and any delays which might occur concerning transmission upgrades and commercial online date. As a proposed utility-owned generation project, ratepayers would pay a lump sum cost rather than a performance based cost for the Manzana Wind Project. Therefore, ratepayers would be at risk if the project underperforms. In particular, if the Manzana Wind Project fails to achieve production as expected for any reason such as construction delays or curtailments as a result of a collision with a California condor, shareholders face no risks while customers could incur increased costs. In contrast, under a power purchase agreement, project owners rather than ratepayers bear the risk of project performance.

Funny what happens when actual economics of “green power” rather than noble intentions, political fads and good feelings are used to make a decision. The Daily Bayonet has additional coverage of another wind power economic fiasco up in Canada; be sure to read the whole thing.

Finally, courtesy of Sippican Cottage, comes this website that explores the wide gap between advertising creative types and real world people:

Quoth the raven: “Heh.” ..bruce w..

While we have warmed up somewhat in the past week, anyone who lives in San Diego can tell you how cold and gloomy the summer has been. In typical San Diego summer, there is a period in May and June where the cold water off the coast fuels a persistent fog layer that spreads miles inland, keeping the area cooler that the latitude would proscribe and giving rise to what the natives call “June Gloom”.  In most years, this pattern breaks by the 3rd week in June, and gives way to hot, sunny days moderated in the afternoon by a strong sea breeze.

Not so this year.  The gloom was entrenched until mid-August.  One likely explanation is a massively cold area of water in the eastern Pacific.  This is frequently referred to as  La Niña, the cold counterpart to El Niño’s warmer than normal water.

At the moment, science is not able to connect our diminished solar radiation to the cooling of the eastern pacific.  But if the lowered solar output is a driver for this, North America could be in for some unwanted weather patterns.

For starters, it could be very cold indeed over California and Nevada this winter.  With that huge pocket of cold water driving our air temperatures, we could see much lower daily lows than we are used to.  If this acts like the last La Niña, we could see a lack of rain this winter in the southwest, putting further strain on our sources in the Sierra and the Colorado River.?

Gerard Van der Leun over at American Digest posted the poster above.

As for me and my house, well, here’s a photo of our place from Earth Hour 2009:

Repeat and rinse.  ..bruce w..

…Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU made a series of (for warmists) startling admissions over the weekend. And, of course, Hitler has to weigh in. Hat tip to Gerard Van der Leun over at American Digest (one of the best blogs on the web). I know the Hitler clip is a bit overused, but this is very, very well done. Heh.

UPDATE 1830 MDT

FX is showing “The Day After Tomorrow” right now; I don’t know if that’s pure coincidence or some clever programming on someone’s part.  In either case, the movie’s wretched and nonsensical scientific gaffes, as well as the political heavy-handedness (e.g., the Dick Cheney clone), are even more painful in the light of the wholesale collapse of AGW during the past several months.  ..bfw..

How it looks in the planners' minds.

One fundamental economic problem with mass transit is that it rarely, if ever, is financially self-sufficient. This is usually explained away with something like, “Well, if we get enough people riding it, the benefit to the environment will be worth it.” Besides the fact that this generally isn’t true, there’s the additional problem that when (a) fuel prices go up and/or (b) economic times get tough, mass transit fares go up and services face cutbacks — right at the time when mass transit would might make more sense.

(Another fundamental problem is that mass transit, like most ‘alternative energy’ sources, lacks the density, carrying capacity, and convenience to make it worthwhile. But that’s another discussion.)

California, which never saw a green idea it didn’t like (and totally screw up), is facing this problem with mass transit right now (hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit):

For three years, Veronique Selgado took BART from the East Bay to her job working for an airline at San Francisco International Airport. But she recently switched to driving because BART raised fares and upped its SFO round-trip surcharge from $3 to $8, boosting her daily trip cost to nearly $20.

“It’s outrageous,” Selgado said. “At what point do they stop raising the prices,  when it’s $50 a day to go round-trip to work? At what point does BART stand back and say, ‘People can’t pay that much to commute’?”

One of the comments to the article points to this Onion classic:

WASHINGTON, DC–A study released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association reveals that 98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.

“With traffic congestion, pollution, and oil shortages all getting worse, now is the time to shift to affordable, efficient public transportation,” APTA director Howard Collier said. “Fortunately, as this report shows, Americans have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that.”

Of the study’s 5,200 participants, 44 percent cited faster commutes as the primary reason to expand public transportation, followed closely by shorter lines at the gas station. Environmental and energy concerns ranked a distant third and fourth, respectively.

Note that I lived in and around Washington DC for eight years and was a great fan of the Metro system — but I still have to admit it’s poorly run, poorly maintained, and heavily subsidized.  ..bruce..

…they’d probably look something like the one above. Hat tip to Steven Hayward over at NRO. ..bruce w..

I'm shocked, shocked! to discover that this has been going on.

I’ve avoided doing a lot of blogging on Climategate because so many other sites and bloggers are doing such a great job, while the Left gets increasingly shrill (“Pay no attention to the scientists behind the curtain!”).

But a new critical point has been reached: the Warmist scientific elite are starting to turn on one another:

One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.”

Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.

“I can’t justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that’s clear.”

Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.

To quote Glenn Reynolds: heh.  By the way, Mann himself is under investigation by Penn State, which may help explain the hasty denials. Don’t these scientists ever watch “Law & Order”? The first to cut a deal gets off easier.

UPDATE

Oh, and Al Gore has just canceled his pay-per-view ‘global warming’ lecture at Copenhagen. Wonder how many of his slides in his “new multimedia show” were based on Climategate-tainted research?  Hat tip to Climate Depot. (P.S. The photo above is the one that accompanied the original Danish news article.)

YET ANOTHER UPDATE

Courtesy of the Anchoress comes this Ghostbusters clip that let the secret slip years ago:

I worked for 18 months at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, which back then was right next door to NASA/JSC, and while it was possibly the best job I ever had, it forever disabused me of the notion of science as untainted by ambition, greed, money, politics and personality conflicts. ..bruce w..

I haven’t written much about ‘Climategate’ because so many others are doing such a great job (for example, see here, here, and here). But this video (hat tip to Ace of Spades) pretty much sums things up (and with a catchy tune, too!).  ..bruce w..