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.
PeterM
No problem “grasping” the “450/2 concept” at all. But it appears that you do.
As your link describes this, it relates to the total warming one would expect from the GH effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 from the level in 1850 (290 ppmv) to a future level of 450 ppmv.
This is a meaningless number, Peter.
We are enjoying a certain average temperature today with absolutely no adverse effects.
Back in 1850 our average temperature was somewhat lower, but certainly no better for humanity, crop growth, our environment, etc. than the temperature of today.
So what is important here is the theoretically anticipated change of temperature resulting from GH warming from today to some future date, when CO2 might reach the level of 450 ppmv.
Using the exaggerated climate sensitivity assumptions of IPCC, this would be 0.7C, NOT 2C.
Get it?
Or are you having difficulty “grasping” this?
If so, I can’t help you – go to a priest.
Max
PeterM
For shame!
You are trying to bamboozle Brute with your “plastic bottle” diversion.
Answer his question instead.
WHERE IS THE MISSING HEAT THAT SHOULD BE “HIDING” SOMEWHERE IN THE “PIPELINE” according to Hansen et al., but is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND (Trenberth’s “travesty”)?
A simple, straightforward answer will do – not a silly, irrelevant waffle about plastic bottles.
Max
Max,
I do remember from my own school and university days, and this was particularly applicable to science and mathematics, that the best teachers wouldn’t just answer a question by providing a direct answer.
Instead they would ask return a different question, or a series of questions, and in the end you found that in effect you’d answered your own original question. Of course, that always took a little longer but that way there could be no doubt that you’d really understood and it was well worth the extra time.
So, I must admit I’m using that technique on Brute just now. But he’s a big boy, and if he feels I’m being unfair, I’m sure he’s quite capable of speaking for himself.
Max said
“So even if we shut down the world’s economy completely, we would NOT be able to “bring it back down below 400 ppmv” (and we obviously are NOT going to shut down the world’s economy completely).”
Here we have the crux of the matter. Only half the world (who are producing half the emissions) is ‘willing’ to severely curtail their carbon emissions-by up to 50%.
Doing this will not only cost a fortune but reduce the ability of those countries to afford the ongoing costs as their economy will be weakened.
In the meantime the other half are increasing their emissions, so rendering the efforts of the other half (lets call this group ‘the West’)pointless.
The total effect of shutting down the world economy is a reduction in temperature of around .10degrees C. If the ‘West’ reduced their emissions by half the effect would be …well you do the maths.
The cost of carbon reduction is variously reported to be up to 2.5% of GDp -in the Uk’s case thats an aditional £50 billion per year. Our temperature reduction’reward,’ as an economy representing 3% of the worlds economy, would be…
I will let Peter do the Maths and then tell me the benefits to the planet or the individiual of joining the ranks of the drastic carbon reduction club.
I suspect he believes in the ‘tragedy of the commons’. In this case I’m afraid I don’t
*Figures From the Stern report, Report from the Japanese govt and from estimates of consumption and GDP from Wikipedia.
tonyb
TonyB,
So you’re saying that AGW can’t be a real problem because it would be too expensive/difficult to fix it?
Peter 3505
I didn’t say that at all.
But now lets say that if the cost/bureacracy/impositions etc would be so great they fundamentally affect the well being of those making the sacrifice, yet it made no difference whatsoever, what argument would you use to say the effort should continue?
A belief in the tragedy of the commons (surely not relevant here.
A belief in ‘noble Cause?’
A belief that we should move on from the system of medieval indulgences to that of self flaggelation?
Ps I notice you haven’t challenged the figures.
tonyb
Peter (Mr. Wizard),
Your attempt at misdirection has been noted (you don’t have an answer).
Is the R-Value of the plastic (and paint) the exact same as air? How does the rate of heat transfer differ between the plastic and air?
Is the bottle surrounded by a deep (cold) vacuum?
Let’s try a different lab……….A planet roughly the size of Earth is heated by a star roughly the same size as our Sun. The atmosphere of this planet contains 0.033% carbon dioxide which we increase by 23% to 0.04059%. There is no measured temperature increase on the surface of the planet, within the bodies of water of the planet or within the atmosphere of the planet.
May we conclude that introducing .00759 % carbon dioxide had no effect on the total heat retained by the planet?
PeterM
You ask TonyB the wrong question:
No, Peter – you have failed to grasp what both Tony and I are saying, namely that
a) AGW is not a ‘real problem’ for scientific reasons (see earlier calculations)
b) even if it were, we would be unable to “fix it”
Part a) has been discussed ad nauseam here, so there is no point repeating (unless you have new empirical data supporting your premise that it is a problem).
If you have any specific actionable proposals regarding part b), which would demonstrably make a measurable impact on our future climate, please list them (along with a cost/benefit analysis) or “forever hold your peace”.
This is sort of a “put your money where your mouth is” moment, Peter – not time for diversionary waffles.
Awaiting your reply.
Max
This “climate summary”…….(weather summary) from NOAA is interesting.
This January was absolutely frigid, but curiously, dry.
The latest outburst from Peter’s Messiah, Al Gore, was that global warming causes more moisture to be absorbed into the atmosphere causing these heavy snowfalls. But this (again) conflicts with the observations…..It has been very cold and (comparatively) dry this season……..
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
January 2011
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Peter
Max restated the reality of the situation in 3508
The figures for action simply don’t stack up-we can have NO measurable effect.
Please dispute the calculations if you like and provide a cost benefit analysis.(As I have bothered to do)
If not, please indicate which of these you believe in;
The Tragedy of the Commons (surely not relevant here.)
A belief in ‘Noble Cause?’ (but for what purpose?)
A belief that we should move on from the system of medieval indulgences through hair shirts and on to that of self flaggelation for imagined sins? (it appears AGW is a religion after all.)
Take your choice Peter.
As Max says
“This is sort of a “put your money where your mouth is” moment, Peter – not time for diversionary waffles.”
Awaiting your reply.
tonyb
When I was at school, I remember being told that in terms of precipitation, “x” inches of snow equals 1 inch of rain. Can anyone remember what the value of “x” is and whether such a ratio is an old wives tale or a reasonable estimate?
1″ of rain = 12″ of snow (.3048 meter)
TonyB,
I’m neither disputing nor accepting any figures you’ve put forward re the cost of mitigating climate change.
Its a common tactic of contrarians to use the “we can’t afford it” argument. Its rather like Winston Churchill arguing, in the early stages of WW2, that the Germans just couldn’t possibly have any intention to invade the UK, he’d done the calculations, the country was struggling to recover from the depression and it was far more than could be afforded to stop them.
Sometimes things just have to be done.
The figures do show that the cost of CO2 mitigation isn’t cheap. But neither are they comparable to the costs of a major war. No-one is going to get killed, no buildings need to be destroyed. The move away from fossil fuels will have to occur at some point anyway and AGW means we should be doing it earlier rather than later.
PeterM
Nor are you coming up with any specific actionable suggestions yourself (along with cost/benefit analyses), as requested by both TonyB and myself.
You are simply waffling (as usual), with examples of “Churchill in WWII” and other irrelevant side tracks.
Get specific or admit that you are unable to do so (i.e. because we are not able to “change our climate” at will).
Max
PeterM
Agreed. It will do so automatically, Peter, when other energy sources have become more viable due to new/improved technologies and dwindling fossil fuel reserves, regardless of what IPCC recommends (and without a global “carbon tax”).
So we probably agree on that point.
The World Bank has just shot down the findings of the Stern Review, so it appears we still have plenty of time to let nature run its course for finding the best solutions to the world’s energy supply problems and any adverse climate changes that nature may throw at us.
To me this seems like the more rational solution.
And you have demonstrated that you are unable to come up with any specific proposals, which would support the urgent need for mitigating action.
So let’s go with the more logical solution.
Agreed?
Max
PeterM
Correct.
They also show that “CO2 mitigation” actions are totally ineffective, as we are unable to change our planet’s climate at will, no matter how much money we throw at the problem.
Since you are unable to refute this with specifics, I suppose you’l have to accept it.
Max
You’re saying that atmospheric CO2 levels are likely “to reach 500, 600 or 700 ppmv”
and “that is where we are headed”
So we can increase levels but we can’t decrease them?
Its like an alcoholic saying, that over the years his consumption has risen, and there’s just nothing that can possibly be done to bring it under any sort of control!
If we keep experiencing these mild winters then we won’t need energy for heating. Global Warming will add years and years of supply to the world’s oil and gas reserve estimates.
Right Pete?
Today’s headlines:
Frigid air, snow, worry ranchers in Plains, South…
Coldest January since 1994 in USA…
Georgia eyes coldest winter ever…
-28 IN OKLAHOMA, ALL-TIME LOW…
Coldest Temperature Ever Recorded in Oklahoma: -31F today
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/coldest-temperature-ever-recorded-in-oklahoma-31f-today/#more-33695
Air Pollution – Ontario Energy Policy
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/ontario-energy-policy.html
PeterM
Instead of talking about alcoholics, show us all how you propose to reduce atmospheric CO2.
Max
Max,
How to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2? I seem to remember that I pointing out that reducing CO2 emissions isn’t the same as reducing concentrations. However, the two are certainly related.
If CO2 emissions are sufficiently reduced over an extended period of time, then the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will also fall.
Emissions will have to fall at some point in the future, if for the simple reason that fossil fuels are finite and there won’t be a choice. The question is: Can CO2 emissions be reduced because we choose to, and at an an earlier time?
Peter #3521
Britain is being asked to spend $50 Billion a year for no discernible temperature reduction whatosever in order to try to reach a ‘safe’ 350ppm.
The entire world is being asked to contribute around $700billion p.a for no discernible benefit whatsoever, as shutting the worlds carbon economy down completely will ultimately mean a theoretical reduction in global temperatures of 0.10C.
Are you seriously saying we don’t have better things to do with our time, money, resources and ingenuity. Really?
Have you ironed your hair shirt today before preparing yourself for some self flagellation?
Tonyb
“shutting the worlds carbon economy” ??
Where do you get these silly ideas?
Peter 3523
You are parsing as usual. Do you ever read what is written and the context of what has gone before?
Max 3493
“So even if we shut down the world’s economy completely, we would NOT be able to “bring it back down below 400 ppmv” (and we obviously are NOT going to shut down the world’s economy completely).”
I also said in my 3505, reiterating Max;
“So even if we shut down the world’s economy completely, we would NOT be able to “bring it back down below 400 ppmv” (and we obviously are NOT going to shut down the world’s economy completely). Here we have the crux of the matter. Only half the world (who are producing half the emissions) is ‘willing’ to severely curtail their carbon emissions-by up to 50%.
Doing this will not only cost a fortune but reduce the ability of those countries to afford the ongoing costs as their economy will be weakened.
In the meantime the other half are increasing their emissions, so rendering the efforts of the other half (lets call this group ‘the West’)pointless.
The total effect of shutting down the world economy is a reduction in temperature of around .10degrees C. If the ‘West’ reduced their emissions by half the effect would be …well you do the maths.
The cost of carbon reduction is variously reported to be up to 2.5% of GDp -in the Uk’s case thats an aditional £50 billion per year. Our temperature reduction’reward,’ as an economy representing 3% of the worlds economy, would be…
I will let Peter do the Maths and then tell me the benefits to the planet or the individiual of joining the ranks of the drastic carbon reduction club.”
As you well know we are pointing out that even IF the worlds economy was closed down the effect on temperature would be negligible. No one is going to do that so the effect is even smaller-as I said ‘let Peter do the maths’ which you resolutely refuse to do.
The reality is that our impact is extremely small and the cost extremely large. I am waiting for you to remove your green coloured hair shirt and tell me why we should follow the course of action you want.
tonyb
The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html