THE "SPRAWL" BOGEYMAN

Everybody knows some things about sprawl: It's a recent, and largely American phenomenon; it encourages wasteful use of resources; it's aesthetically unpleasant; and it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. We also know that it could be conquered if Americans just gave up their "love affair with the automobile" and favored mass transit. Everybody knows these things, but Robert Bruegmann's new book, Sprawl: A Compact History, argues that they're untrue.

Sprawl isn't recent, says Bruegmann. Rich people have always wanted to sprawl: "Ancient, medieval, and early modern literature is filled with stories of the elegant life of a privileged aristocracy living for large parts of the year in villas and hunting lodges at the periphery of large cities. . . . High density, from the time of Babylon until recently, was the great urban evil, and many of the wealthiest or most powerful citizens found ways to escape it at least temporarily."

Sprawl didn't become a problem until the wealthy and powerful were joined by the hoi polloi. Thanks to greater wealth and improvements in transportation, they were able to move from teeming tenements to less-urban settings. Once this started to happen -- before the automobile hit the scene, and beginning outside the United States -- social critics began to complain that sprawl was ruining pristine landscapes, and destroying the charm of urban life. (Ironically, as Bruegmann also points out, some of the very aspects of sprawl criticized by earlier generations -- like the miles of brick terrace row houses built in South London during the 19th century -- are now regarded as quaintly charming: "Most urban change, no matter how wrenching for one generation, tends to be the accepted norm of the next and the cherished heritage of the one after that.")

Bruegmann also notes that sprawl is not, in fact, a particularly American phenomenon, and illustrates his book with pictures of strip malls and low density housing from places as diverse as Bangalore and Paris. He also notes, in reports that remind me of similar discussions in James Scott's Seeing Like A State, that most efforts on the part of urban planners to reduce sprawl seem to make things worse, and to enrich incumbent landowners at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

Bruegmann's analysis seems to echo my own experience. I live in Knoxville, a sprawling community indeed. (Metropolitan Knoxville covers nine counties, and has a population of about 600,000). Knoxville sprawls because it's easy to build new homes and businesses here. That also makes housing very cheap. People who could barely afford a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan, or a row house in Brooklyn, can easily afford a very nice home here. Yes, it sprawls -- but I spoke this morning to a producer in New York who took 45 minutes to get to her Manhattan office from Brooklyn by subway; it took me 20 minutes to drive to work.

The biggest complaint against sprawl, as Bruegmann repeatedly points out, seems at core to be that some people are getting above themselves. Nobody, he writes, complained about sprawl when it involved the spectacular country estates of the rich: "Sprawl is subdivisions and strip malls intended for middle- and lower-middle-class families." He notes the irony of Pete Seeger's condemning "little boxes made of ticky-tacky" when they represented working people's hope for a better life, and compounds the irony by noting that those same houses are now "being reappraised by hip, young urbanites who see them as charming period pieces."

There's much more to Bruegmann's book, both in terms of numerous statistics, charts, and graphs, and interesting arguments (among other things, he suggests that low-density living may be more environmentally friendly, and may encourage its occupants to be more interested in the environment than they would be if they lived in urban warrens, since people move to suburbia and exurbia in order to be close to nature).

As Artemus Ward famously observed, "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we do know that just ain't so." Bruegmann's book makes a strong case that a lot of the things we think we know about sprawl just ain't so. I hope that it gets the attention it deserves.

Source




PHILIP STOTT DECONSTRUCTS THE MONTREAL SHENANIGANS

The Montreal conference on climate change has been an eye-opener. It has demonstrated a truth which for a long time has been only partially apparent: namely that, for many delegates and Green 'hangers on', punishing America for electing George W. Bush is far more rewarding and important than tackling climate change. Listening to the commentators on this morning's Today programme (BBC Radio 4), it was abundantly clear that their totally misplaced 'satisfaction' lay in humiliating America. Moreover, the Today programme itself appeared to be encouraging this agenda. By contrast, yesterday, I participated in two long and truly excellent discussions on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Radio 5 Live, both of which were far more balanced and analytical than those on Radio 4. This surely tells us a great deal about the liberal elite agenda in the UK.

The obsession with America is ridiculous, and, as Margaret Beckett herself, the UK Secretary of State for the Environment, wisely commented yesterday: "... it is a big mistake for people to focus only on the United States as the obstacle in negotiations like this. There are plenty of other people around with their own particular concerns, not all of whom are as positive as one would like."

For anybody genuinely worried about climate change, Montreal is bleak. First, many countries which take the 'moral high ground' in public are quietly the very worst offenders. Hypocritical Canada (Paul Martin was unbelievable in his attack on the US) has seen its emissions rise by 24% (on the Kyoto-base 1990-levels); Japan, which gave the name to the original Kyoto Protocol, by 18%; and the statistics for some of the ever-pious European countries take the breath away - Spain up by 42%, Portugal up by 37%, and merry Ireland and Greece up by 26%. In contrast, the US - the non-ratifier of Kyoto, note - has seen its emissions rise by only 13% (and they have fallen 2% under Bush!). So who is the bad boy?

'Talking-the-talk' is quite different from 'walking-the-walk', witness rock-n'-rollin' Bill Clinton - remember that, under Clinton and Gore, the Senate vote on Kyoto was 95 to 0 against, with five not voting [see: Byrd-Hagel (S. Res 98)].

Secondly, while everybody is snidely berating the US, Brazil, China and India, for example, can blithely state that there is no way they will accept binding targets, and the Australian Environment Minister declares unsullied: "The concept of binding targets and timetables is just about finished." Many less-developed countries also rightly argue that, for them, poverty alleviation comes first. And then there are those true rogue countries, like Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose tactics are completely opaque and sui generis.

Thirdly, the key to any future lies with the big countries of the developing world, especially China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and their ilk. The peak demand in the UK is 65 GWe on a cold day in January between 5 and 7 pm. China alone is now adding 80 GWe per year to its energy arsenal, and this is primarily generated from coal-powered plants. China is already the second largest emitter in the world, and it will soon achieve the world premiership title.

The Montreal conference has thus been a remarkable exercise in post-modern politics, in which the death of the author has been starklingly demonstrated.

In the end, for those poor souls who are desperately worried about climate change, there can be only one measure of success - dramatically declining emissions. But there is no evidence whatsoever that this conference will lead to any such thing. Indeed, the myths of carbon trading are likely to increase overall emissions, while binding targets are now off the agenda.

Bashing America may be fun (for some), but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the deeper realities. Indeed, Mr. Bush may have done far better politically to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol - and then to ignore it, just like everyone else. That would have been yet another triumph of PR over substance. 'Talking-the-talk' is cheap - in every sense.

In summary, the Montreal conference has been little more than a Carrollian 'Caucus-race', fascinating to observe, but largely pointless...

(Excerpt from here)





MORE EVIDENCE FOR SOLAR FORCING OF TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE

(From Advances in Space Research. Volume 35, Issue 3 , 2005, Pages 484-490)

Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays

By: S.V. Veretenenko, V.A. Dergachev and P.B. Dmitriyev Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Politekhnicheskaya Street 26, St. Petersburg 194021, Russia

Abstract:

Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic for the period 1874-1995 (Mean Sea Level Pressure archive, Climatic Research Unit, UK) were compared with indices of solar and geomagnetic activity and the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations characterized by the concentration of the cosmogenic isotope 10Be. A periodicity of 80 yrs close to the Gleissberg cycle in the intensity of the 11-yr solar cycles was found in the pressure variations at middle latitudes (45-65øN) in the cold half of the year, which is the period of intensive cyclogenesis. It was shown that a long-term increase of pressure in this region coincided with a secular rise of solar/geomagnetic activity which was accompanied by a decrease in GCR intensity. Long-term decreases of pressure were observed during the periods of low (or decreasing) intensities of sunspot cycles. Similar features were also found in the spectral characteristics of geomagnetic activity indices, GCR intensity and pressure at middle latitudes on the quasi-decadal time scale. Effects of solar activity/GCR variations on the surface pressure seem to be more pronounced in the North Atlantic zone of intensive cyclogenesis (near the eastern coasts of North America). The results obtained suggest possible links between long-term variations in cyclonic activity at extratropical latitudes of the North Atlantic and solar activity/GCR variations on the time scales from 10 to 100 yrs.

[...]

3. Conclusions:

The data presented reveal cyclic variations in surface pressure and cyclonic activity in the North Atlantic on the time scales 10-100 yrs, the found periodicities being the most pronounced at middle latitudes in the cold half of the year (the period of more intensive cyclogenesis). It is suggested that these variations may be associated with corresponding long-term periodicities of solar activity and of galactic cosmic rays. An increase of pressure at middle latitudes was found to coincide with a secular rise of solar/geomagnetic activity accompanied by a decrease in GCR intensity, whereas long-term decreases of pressure were observed during the periods of low (or decreasing) solar activity. Similar features in spectral characteristics of geomagnetic activity indices, GCR intensity and pressure at middle latitudes also suggest possible relations between cyclonic processes in the North Atlantic and GCR variations on the quasi-decadal time scale. Solar activity/GCR effects on the intensity of cyclonic processes seem to be most appreciable in the North Atlantic zone of intensive cyclogenesis (near the eastern coasts of North America) in the cold half of the year. A possible mechanism of GCR effects on the cyclone development may involve long-term changes in the frontal zone characteristics resulting from radiative forcing and/or latent heat release related to cloudiness variations.

(The Doi (permanent) address for the full article above is here)




NATURAL WARMING LARGER THAN THOUGHT?

(From World Climate Report, 9 December 2005 )

"Below are some observations found in a couple of recent journal articles that have received little attention-- hmm.... we wonder why? The first observation was made by a team of paleoclimatologists led by Jan Esper in a viewpoint paper entitled "Climate: past ranges and future changes," published in Quaternary Science Reviews. Esper and colleagues examined the amplitude of the temperature variations that have been reported for earth's temperature during the past millennium. These include studies from the by-now familiar names of Mann, Moberg, Jones, Esper and Briffa. Esper et al. summarize their effort:

Comparison of large-scale temperature reconstructions over the past millennium reveals agreement on major climatic episodes, but substantial divergence in the reconstructed (absolute) temperature amplitude. We here detail several research priorities to overcome this 'amplitude desideratum', and discuss the relevance of this effort for the prediction of future temperature changes and the meaning of the Kyoto Protocol. In particular, they conclude: So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role on natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact on anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.

Well, since we already know that the Kyoto protocol is ineffective as it is, Esper doesn't add much insight there. But, it sure seems that Esper and colleagues are making the case that natural variability may have had a larger impact (and thus the human impact has been smaller) on the temperature trends during the past century or so than is generally realized.

The second observation on the relative impact of man vs. nature on temperature is given by United States Geological Survey scientists Timothy Cohn and Harry Lins in a paper appearing in Geophysical Research Letters, entitled "Nature's style: Naturally trendy." In this rather technical and mathematical work, the authors examine the role of long-term persistence in the temperature record and how it affects the significance of the temporal trend often drawn through the earth's recent temperature history. Cohn and Lins conclude that the very real possibility that the natural climate system contains a high degree of long-term persistence means that the degree to which the temperature rise during the past century is of a natural vs. anthropogenic cause cannot clearly be determined. Specifically, they wrote:

These findings have implications for both science and public policy. For example, with respect to temperature data, there is overwhelming evidence that the planet has warmed during the past century. But could this warming be due to natural dynamics? Given what we know about the complexity, long-term persistence, and non-linearity of the climate system, it seems the answer might be yes.

Finally, that reported trends are real yet insignificant indicates a worrisome possibility: Natural climate excursions may be much larger than we imagine. So large, perhaps, that they render insignificant the changes, human-induced or otherwise, observed during the past century.

Apparently, the existence of such scientists with such opinions is lost on all those folks proclaiming the "science is settled," such as Bill Clinton, who, in his remarks made to rally the troops at the closing of the U. N. climate meetings in Montreal said, "There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities."

Bill, read the literature."

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************