This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
I’m going to start a “carbon dioxide emission curtailment program” by lobbying the federal government to pass a law restricting respiration (for a small fee payable to the Brute offshore racing boat fund)………..It’ll be more effective and cost less than seeding the atmosphere with sulfuric acid as Obama’s Climate Tsar John Holdren recommends.
If everyone held their breath for just one minute a day we could lower the planet’s temperature by 15 degrees in just one year!
You’ve inspired me Pete!
I’m going to start a “carbon dioxide emission curtailment program” by lobbying the federal government to pass a law restricting citizes respiration (for a small fee payable to the Brute offshore racing boat fund)………It’ll be more effective and cost less than seeding the atmosphere with sulfuric acid as Obama’s Climate Tsar John Holdren recommends.
Max,
You ask “But hey, Peter, how does the absorption system differentiate between what you call “excess” CO2 and all other CO2? ”
It doesn’t. If Co2 levels are 40% higher than would be a natural equilibrium, there may be 10 natural CO2 molecules and 4 extra human caused CO2 molecules? So it doesn’t matter which ones are absorbed.
I must say that the calculation as outlined previously is my own. There are figures for half lives which are much lower. I’d say were too low. And there are some others which question the notion that half life is an appropriate way to measure excess CO2 levels. They may be right but I’d say that half-life should be a reasonable approximation.
I came up with a figure of 75-80 years which is in reasonably good agreement with this:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994GBioC…8…23M
Brute,
You aren’t being very nice – asking me to stop breathing.
OK I guess you are still sore that I pointed out that the only way you could be absolutely sure that you had no kids was if you’d had no sex life either. Really, that’s OK. Everyone has a right to have as much or as little as they like. I don’t have a problem with that. Really. :-)
No Pete, you’re wrong again……it’s called exercising self control and taking responsibility for ones actions…………it’s what separates us from the animals.
Beside that, I thought long and hard about the impact on the environment of bringing children into the world. So there!
Think of all of the excess CO2 that is being emitted because YOU couldn’t keep your hands to yourself……or at the very least, get off your wallet and visit the pharmacy before going out on a date.
You hate the planet…………that’s why you willfully sired………not one………but THREE carbon emitting planet killers!
Your actions were irresponsible and the guilt of harming Earth God Gaia will and haunt you through eternity.
Brute
Human CO2 emissions from all sources (fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, cement production, etc. total around 35 billion tons (Gt) per year.
The average CO2 exhaled by all humans in one year is 2.2 Gt or around 6.3% of the anthropogenic CO2.
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/05/01/direct-co2-emissions-by-humans/
Other animals (excluding insects) emit an estimated 10 GT CO2 per year.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_greenhouse_gases_are_being_emitted_yearly
Insects emit an estimated 48 GT CO2 per year.
How to “save the world”?
Breathe slowly, go hunting, eat meat and call the Orkin man.
It’s a no-brainer.
Max
This is a well worn denialist argument
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
CO2 emitted by insects and all animals doesn’t matter unless they have been feeding on fossil fuels.
That’s not usually the case! These food sources can be classed as bio fuels and are not the cause of CO2 build up in the atmsosphere.
I have not seen published anywhere any conclusive study that demonstrates that the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is solely down the burning of Hydrocarbon fuels. (Remember they are not all fossil fuels) Certainly all the reputable studies that have tried to actually measure the carbon budget have left me with more questions than answers. So just like with CO2 and greenhouse gas feedbacks, we argue about science that no one has yet got a grip on. If I’m wrong here, can someone provide the science to me? And by the way the measuring of isotopes is not proof, it is only an indication that some of the CO2 is coming from combustion, so please don’t provide this one dimensional argument as proof.
Peter Geany,
Science doesn’t work on the basis of proof of theories – but rather the most likely explanation for observed phenomena.
On the other hand, evidence can disprove a theory or decrease the likelihood of an existing theory being true to the point that it is no longer accepted.
Finally the observations that GHG’s (Co2 is at its highest level for nearly a million years) and temperatures have increased and that the most likely explanation is that they are linked, and are the results of fossil fuel burning aren’t ‘theories’ in the same sense that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a “theory”.
A scientific conclusion based on other well tested scientific principles would be a better description.
PeterM
You’ll have to admit that “every little bit helps” when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, regardless of where this “little bit” is coming from.
To your other point: the bacteria in the Gulf of Mexico that gobbled up a good part of the BP oil spill were “feeding on fossil fuels”, as you described it.
Are the higher life forms that “gobbled up” these bacteria also “feeding on fossil fuels”, Peter?
What difference does it make to the carbon balance whether or not an unusually warm El Niño year like 1998 has caused massive release of CO2 from the ocean, whether northern hemisphere forests are increasing by around 5% per decade (due to slightly higher CO2 levels and temperatures?), whether deserts like the Sahara are “greening” (due to the same effects), whether humans or natural factors are the cause of selected deforestation in the tropics, etc., etc.
It does not really matter, Peter.
Peter Geany is right of course.
There is no definitive evidence to show that the measured 24% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 has come exclusively from human CO2 emissions. Odds are that some part probably did while another part probably did not.
And odds are that a part of the “human” portion probably came from burning fossil fuels, which science tells us were formed millions of years ago from plants created by photosynthesis from (guess what?) atmospheric CO2.
You wrote to PeterG
You are on thin ice here, Peter. The link between CO2 and temperature to which you refer shows that the temperature increased several hundreds of years before the CO2 did, so this is no evidence of “causation” at all (despite Al Gore’s erroneous claim in “AIT”). It would frankly be better for you to drop this line of reasoning.
The “most likely explanation” is that naturally caused warming of the ocean resulted in a gradual increase of atmospheric CO2 with a lag of several hundred years, raising the question: is this part of what is happening now?
Then there is the fact that CO2 levels have been several times as high as today in the distant past, without any “runaway” greenhouse warming:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html
But, as regards today’s situation, suffice it to say that it is reasonable to assume that a portion of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa has resulted from human CO2 emissions.
I think we can all agree to this statement (at least until empirical evidence becomes available to invalidate it).
Max
PS But back to specific actionable proposals to demonstrate that we can “control our planet’s climate”. Still waiting, Peter.
Hey Pete,
Check out these environmentalists working diligently in Cancun (with taxpayer’s money) “fighting” ruthlessly on behalf of the planet. See here how they wage war against gluttony and excess.
See how they “concerned” they are for the “rights” of the planet.
I don’t know about you, but I’m genuinely inspired by their selflessness on behalf of Mother Nature.
I’m confident that these junkets will have an immense benefit to our cherished planet.
I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that the planet’s health rests in the hands of these tireless crusaders for the planet’s welfare.
Bureaucrats Gone Wild in Cancun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q83CQ_7CGCg
Brute
Ai, Chihuahua!
After seeing the video clip you posted, I’m ready to toss away my “denier” sombrero and join the happy crowd of “warmers” saving the planet at Cancun.
Where can I sign up for some of that warm Mexican climate and those free (taxpayer-funded) margaritas? (It’s freezing here in Switzerland due to “climate change” and we’re up to our eyeballs in snow.)
Max
Brute
Here’s one from the Bishop Hill site entitled:
A year after Climategate, the corruption of science persists
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=128193
It points out some of the facts concerning the “science”, which Peter has a hard time accepting.
As far as the politics are concerned, the author points out:
As you wrote: Follow the money trail… (And it’s your tax money, Brute.)
Max
CO2 is NOT a problem for the planet. It is a “problem” only in the minds of the [ snip ] who are stealing our cash.
Which are you?
Run your flags up the mast, which of these statements are true for you ….
1.[ snip ]
or
2. [ snip ]
or
3. I know the real truth and CO2 isn’t a problem.
[TonyN: Read the bog rules]
Oh heavens no Max!
You can’t frivolously travel on pleasure trips to exotic locales!
The jet fuel burned will spew toxic carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere and kill the planet!
What’s wrong with you!
(You obviously hate polar bears……….)
The climate crusaders in Cancun are doing Gaia’s work………saving the planet by lounging on the beach and getting sprayed down with beer by Sammy Hagar.
Postscript: Did I see that they were actually serving COOKED MEAT at the climate summit? It must be the locally grown, non CO2 producing animals that they’re grilling up down there for the conscientious climate do-gooders.
Brute
Yeah, the carbon footprint from the CO2 from all that charcoal is horrendous – the least these guys could do to help save our planet is to eat the meat raw.
But wait! Peter would argue if they broil the meat with (non-fossil) charcoal that is inherently different from doing it with (fossil) propane or (maybe fossil) natural gas (somehow the CO2 molecules from the various processes act differently on our climate).
At any rate, let’s hope they come up with a UN-administered world-wide “rationing scheme” and “carbon tax” to save our planet before it’s too late.
Max
Let’s do a quick “change of pace” here:
As we know, the CLOUD experiment being conducted at CERN in Geneva, has reported some preliminary results, which tend to validate the cosmic ray / cloud climate connection postulated by Henrik Svensmark et al. and confirmed by earlier small-scale experiments.
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/12/cerns-cloud-experiment.html
To quote from this 1-year old release:
The actual report from the early pilot run states:
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/17760/
Translation: the first results look promising, but “more work is needed”.
I have not yet seen any reports of more recent CLOUD experiment results.
In its AR4 report, IPCC has ignored the cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis as a possible cause of at least part of the global warming observed to date.
But, IPCC does concede that its “level of scientific understanding” of “solar” forcing factors is “low” and that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”. In other words, the cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis of Svensmark et al. falls into both areas where IPCC has conceded a high degree of “uncertainty”.
Spencer has postulated that clouds act as a natural climate forcing factor (rather than just a “feedback” from anthropogenic forcing), and has shown that there is a fairly good correlation with the PDO cycle. Spencer has, however, not suggested the mechanism by which the PDO cycle, itself, is driven. Could there be a connection here?
Let’s hope the CERN CLOUD work is completed and documented before IPCC issues another “assessment report”, so it can include the cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis as part of this next report and, if necessary, revise its conclusions on the importance of natural versus anthropogenic forcing on our planet’s climate.
Max
Max,
Concerning clouds, here is something I posted over at RC, and then at WUWT:
Below is a screen copy of a comment on this topic, that I made over at RealClimate, whilst it was waiting in moderation. For some inexplicable reason it did not emerge, and deliberately, I did not even mention the source; WUWT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
24 November 2010 at 7:22 PM
WRT various comments above about clouds and climate sensitivity, here follows an extract from a press release on a new paper:
“All the global climate models we analyzed have serious deficiencies in simulating the properties of clouds in present-day climate. It is unfortunate that the global models’ greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uoha-scm112210.php
What I find most interesting is the strong criticism of existing models. However, from the press release it would seem that the paper itself is a rather flimsy affair, and probably not worth a read. (although good fodder for the “it’s worse than we thought” brigade).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would have thought that Gavin might have responded to explain any errors in my thinking.
Turn out the lights, the party’s over…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/
Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on their clothes.
Everybody who imagined himself anybody raced to Copenhagen last year for the global-warming summit, renamed “climate change” when the globe began to cool, as it does from time to time. Some 45,000 delegates, “activists,” business representatives and the usual retinue of journalists registered for the party in Copenhagen. This year, only 1,234 journalists registered for the Cancun beach party. The only story there is that there’s no story there. The U.N. organizers glumly concede that Cancun won’t amount to anything, even by U.N. standards.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the cap-and-trade legislation last year, says he’ll be too busy with congressional business (buying stamps for the Christmas cards and getting a haircut and a shoeshine) even to think about going to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all. This year, they’re all staying home, learning to live like lame ducks.
The Senate’s California ladies, cheerleaders for the global-warming scam only yesterday, can’t get far enough away from Cancun this year. Dianne Feinstein says she’s not even thinking about the weather. “I haven’t really thought about [Cancun], to be honest with you,” she tells Politico, the Capitol Hill daily. She still loves the scam, but “no – no, no, no, it’s just that I’m not on a committee related to it.” She’s grateful for small blessings.
Barbara Boxer, who was proud to make global warming her “signature” issue only last year, obviously regards that signature now to be a forgery. She would like to be in Cancun, but she has to stay home to wash her hair. She’s not even sending anyone from her staff, willing as congressional staffers always are to party on the taxpayer dime. “I’m sending a statement to Cancun.” (Stop the press for that.)
This is another lesson that Washington’s swamp fevers inevitably subside. Who now remembers Smoot-Hawley, Quemoy and Matsu, and the Teapot Dome? But these were once issues on which the survival of the known world rested. The only global-warming news of this week was the announcement that the House Select Committee on Global Warming would die with the 111th Congress. Mrs. Pelosi established the committee three years ago to beat the eardrums of one and all, a platform for endless argle-bargle about the causes and effects of climate change. The result was the proposed job-killing national energy tax, but with the Republican sweep, there’s no longer an appetite for killing jobs.
Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the chairman of the doomed committee, organized one final event this week, a splashy daylong exercise in gasbaggery starring the usual suspects assigned to drone on for most of the day about the coming global-warming disasters, the melting of the North Pole and the rising of the seas that would make Denver, Omaha and Kansas City seaside resorts. Wesley Clark was the only former presidential candidate to accept an invitation, and he was a no-show. The star witness of the afternoon session was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an “environmental attorney” who talked about how “clean energy” is nicer than the other kind. Mr. Markey himself, as bored as everyone else, didn’t bother to return after lunch.
The members of the committee can now retire with their scrapbooks of clippings to recall the happy days of hearings about global warming (some of them before “global warming” became “climate change” and “liberals” became “progressives”), about how clean energy could replace smelly oil wells and provide Democrats with the means to enact sweeping climate-change legislation. Who could have foreseen that the only “sweeping” would be the sweeping out of so many Democrats?
When the thrill is gone, the thrill is gone, as star-crossed lovers have learned through the ages, and when a scam collapses, it stays collapsed. The thought is enough to warm hearts all across the globe.
Europe deaths from deep freeze reach 40
December 3rd 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_weather_4
UN Global Warming summit begins with prayer to ‘Mayan moon goddess’…
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/11/cancun_talks_start_with_a_call.html
Brute
From your posts it looks like we need the “Mayan Moon Goddess” here in Europe to thaw things out.
But, don’t worry. The gnomes at Hadley and GISS will make sure it’s a “record warm year” despite all the evidence we’ve had from all over the globe of unusually cold weather.
Max
Hee, Hee.
Yes Max, the global warming cult is unraveling faster than I would have anticipated…..
(Note To Self: Dump General Electric Stock On Monday).
The Cancun debacle is the latest laughing stock of the lunatic fringe environmentalists.
The flailing of these Eco-nuts is entertaining now……..this is better than watching Disco die in the early eighties.
Bob_FJ
Really funny.
Headline: Warming could be worse than we thought
First statement: the models are no good at predicting effect of clouds – could be net warming or cooling.
Second statement: If our models are right, we can expect even more warming.
Duh! The guys that put this together need to take a course in basic logic.
Max
PS I think the superparameterization work on clouds done by Wyant et al. show us that the observations of Spencer and Braswell (pointing to a strongly negative net feedback from clouds with warming) can also be replicated by climate models. (Maybe the guys that put together the study you cited should have checked this out before writing their article.)
ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/papers/2006/SPGRL.pdf
Not sure about this one Max……maybe Tonyb can translate this one for me……Looks like they’re predicting that global warming will cause sea levels to rise AND fall.
Sea Level Could Rise in South, Fall in North
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,732303,00.html
Are we freezing because of global warming?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8178162/Are-we-freezing-because-of-global-warming.html