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
You are waffling again.
Let’s get a bit more specific.
I have told you (and TonyB has underscored this) that I cannot see any specific actionable proposals that could be taken, which would have a measurable impact on the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” construct, a.k.a. “average global temperature”.
In other words, mankind cannot change our climate.
You seem to disagree (if not scientifically, at least philosophically).
Let’s forget the “philosophy” for now and get down to brass tacks.
What specific actionable proposals do you suggest be taken in order to reduce the atmospheric CO2 content?
Who specifically do you suggest should take these actions?
What specific reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppmv) will these actions achieve by when?
What reduction in global warming (degrees C) will theoretically result by when from this calculated CO2 reduction?
What will be the esitmated total cost of these specific actionable proposals?
I have already gone through this calculation for the proposal by Hansen et al. to shut down all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030, showing the warming (deg C) that could theoretically be avoided by implementing this plan (by 2100) plus the investment cost that would be involved. My figures show that the 2100 temperature impact would be less than 0.1C and the cost would be $1.5 trillion. And I have “rolled out” this estimate based on implementing Hansen’s plan worldwide (roughly 3x that for USA).
You have had no specific objections to my estimates, so I must presume that you consider them essentially valid.
Peter, it’s truly time for you to get specific here, rather than simply rehashing the same waffle-words over and over again.
Awaiting your reply.
Max
PeterM
[This is in response to your #32 on the “Nurse versus science” thread, where you cited Ian Plimer’s estimate of the natural greenhouse effect of CO2.]
Dr. Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist, so when he states that the natural greenhouse effect from atmospheric CO2 is around 5.5°C, it probably makes sense.
Other atmospheric physicists have estimated this to be slightly higher (7°C), but within the same range.
Dr. Ian Plimer is a geologist, so when he states that the combined CO2 emissions from all volcanoes plus submarine fissures exceed those of humans, it probably makes sense.
If Plimer talks about natural greenhouse effect of CO2 or Lindzen talks about natural CO2 emissions from the Earth’s crust, I would feel more comfortable if these statements were checked against others for validity.
Following this approach, I have concluded that the natural GHE from CO2 is more likely to be in the range of 5.5 to 7°C, rather than 18°C, as estimated by Plimer.
As far as natural CO2 emissions are concerned, I can accept that Plimer’s estimate may be as valid as any other estimate out there, as there appear to be scientific studies confirming that the total CO2 emissions from all suspected geological sources are several orders of magnitude greater than those estimated from terrestrial volcanoes alone.
Do you have any problem with my logic?
If so, what?
Do you REALLY believe that the natural GHE from CO2 is 18°C?
If so, what other evidence can you provide for this conclusion?
Max
PS (to get this back on topic for TonyN)
Paul Nurse is a geneticist, so when he discusses his field of expertise, I’ll assume that he knows what he is talking about; when he discusses the validity of IPCC climate projections based on model simulations, however, I’ll assume that he knows no more about this than you or I do.
If he uses his title as head of the RS to lend credibility to his statements, I’ll conclude simply that he is falling into the trap of “argument by authority”
Question: Why do people say that they believe global warming exists?
Answer: Because there’s no money in saying that it doesn’t.
Brute:
Many thanks for answer in #3512
Brute
Regarding your 3528
It’s true that many people “believe [man-made] global warming exists” because there is money [or fame or power] in saying so (carbon trader Gore, shady deal-maker Pachauri, taxpayer-funded doomsayer Hansen, GE CEO and Obama advisor Immelt – and the list goes on).
But then there are the ones that do not profit but simply “believe global warming exists” and humans (in particular those living in the industrially developed world) are guilty; they may cloak their belief as “science”, but it is really based on socio-political, philosophical or pseudo-religious reasons.
I know several people like this, with whom I have discussed the many uncertainties and other issues surrounding the AGW premise. Some of these are against all industry, against capitalism, against the USA, for a simpler and more idyllic pre-industrial life, frightened by the media hype or IPCC warnings, etc. Even when the “science” supporting their belief is shown to be wrong, they remain firm.
Guys like Peter fall into this category as far as I can see.
The first category will switch horses as soon as there is a new fad that can bring them more money, fame or power.
The second category will have a harder time changing their belief system, because it is deeply ingrained.
Maybe these are the people, whom Lenin called the “useful idiots”,
Max
TonyN,
My feeling is that the 12:1 ratio is probably too high for the sort of wettish snow I remember in your part of the world. .
“Nullius in verba” is the Royal Society’s motto or “Take nobody’s word for it”.
So, next time you get chance, fill up a straight sided glass with snow and when it’s melted compare the height of the glass with the depth of the meltwater.
Its a pity that we don’t have a spare Earth with which to perform similar definitive tests on the effect of adding extra CO2.
Max,
Thanks for the correction re: “man made”……it is an important distinction; (however, I’m pretty certain the group here knows what I meant).
Your synopsis is quite correct.
Peter (and guys like him) are avowed Socialists, but I doubt very seriously that he would set aside any of his finances over and above his basic needs and turn them over “for the benefit of society” to the state.
I’ve previously asked Peter to forgo his vacations in an effort to “save the planet” and “do his part” to limit his personal carbon emissions…….he quickly glossed over my suggestion to put his money where his mouth is.
The hypocrisy of these eco-socialists is plain to see………but they’ll never admit it.
They want everyone else to cut their emissions…..just don’t require them to do so.
You see, Socialism is only to be imposed on “the people”……….not the socialists.
By embracing this failed political ideology masquerading as “environmentalism”……he is subjecting himself, his family and his fellow countrymen to a life of slavery…….with the State being the plantation owner.
Brute, along many other climate deniers/sceptics, seems to have a bit of a problem with Darwinian Evolution too. So what’s his explanation of why that theory has held sway? Did Darwin secretly believe that Evolutionary theory was just a load of bunk, but decided to write Origin of Species for financial reasons? Similarly Richard Dawkins with his books on the subject.
Did they both decide they would sell better than a reprint of the book of Genesis?
NASA climate programs being eyed for the budget axe
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/09/nasa-climate-programs-being-eyed-for-the-budget-axe/
http://posey.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NASAAppropsLetter-Feb2011.pdf
Where did you fly off to on vacation this year Pete?
I’ll bet the planet would have benefitted immensely if you had just stayed home and donated the money earmarked for the airline tickets to the government of Queensland or the Australian government.
Maybe you could have simply donated the money that you spent to the world wildlife federation or given it to some poor unfortunate soul……….think how much bread you could’ve bought and sent to Egypt with that money!
You advocate “everyone” paying higher taxes to combat global warming………my suggestion to you is to start a trend and send every penny over and above your minimum needs to the government immediately……..they need it to fight global warming…..it’s not really your money anyway……the result of your labor (your personal property) are to be “shared equally” by the masses in the name of the planet.
Brute,
I’m not one for flying off on vacation. I just get bored to be honest, and end up reading a book on the beach which I can do just as well here in Qld.
Anyway I’m not advocating that anyone pay higher taxes. But I am saying that CO2 levels and emissions do need to be controlled.
Brute
Here goes again, with links separate:
What is the conversion factor from snow to water?
Your answer is the standard conversion used for fresh snow, IOW for converting snowfall figures to equivalent rainfall figures.
Here is what one blogger said on Yahoo Questions
Link 1
Another source tells us:
Link 2
Glaciologists measuring ice/snow mass by satellite altimetry use a factor of 0.4 for converting firn to ice, with ice having a density of 916.7 kg/m3 at 0 °C (density = 367 kg/m3). This factor is used to calculate the mass of glacial growth.
It is assumed, however, that glacial shrinkage (or ablation) is melting of highly compacted snow so a factor of 0.9 is used (density = 825 kg/m3).
Link 3
Does this “stack the deck” in favor of ice mass loss?
Max
Link 2
http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/Snow/about/swe.html
Link 3
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat/publications/IGS/mass_changes_2005.pdf
PeterM
We don’t need a “spare Earth” – the one we have will dojust fine, thank you.
Over the past decade we have seen a slight cooling of our atmosphere both at the surface and in the troposphere, as the temperature records show (and we have discussed here ad nauseam).
Since accurate ARGO measurements were installed in 2003, we have observed that the upper ocean has also cooled slightly.
In other words, Earth has had an “unexplained” net loss of energy (Trenberth’s “travesty”).
At the same time human CO2 emissions continued with atmospheric CO2 content increasing at record levels.
So we have physically observed that “the effect of adding extra CO2” on global temperature has been zero (zilch, nada, nichts).
In other words, a successful “experiment” based on actual physical observations (rather than simply model assumptions).
Max
PeterM
You wrote to Brute:
I agree fully, including a direct or indirect carbon tax.
Good that we agree on something, Peter.
Max
1:12 is the rule of thumb.
That’s curious Pete…….the local utility here is charging 0.0015000 per kw for something titled the “Sustainable Energy Trust Fund” which amounted to $8,000.00 per year at one property………..Quite a bit of money when multiplied by every address that the utility serves.
One day I’ll list all of the taxes/surcharges/”energy assistance trust funds”/Residential Aid Discount Surchages that are included in a typical electrical bill.
PeterM
Back to the empirical results of the “experiment” you suggested (or better said, the physical observations) with planet Earth showing “a lack of warming” (i.e. slight cooling) over the past decade, despite record increase in atmospheric CO2.
What has been the reaction of the “dangerous AGW” faithful to this turn of events?
1. denial (the temperatures really haven’t shown a cooling trend, after all, this decade is warmer on average than the last)
2. downplaying (one decade does not constitute a “climate trend”)
3. obfuscation (let’s look at 10-year lagging average trends, instead)
4. rationalization plus wishful thinking (“natural variability” overpowered the GH effect short term, but the underlying GH warming will return “with a vengeance”)
5. silence (let’s wait it out, maybe things will look better for us in the future)
I have seen you resort to reactions 1-3 on this thread.
Met Office (and many DAGW faithful, like Trenberth), have preferred reaction 4.
Others, Dessler, etc. have chosen reaction 5 (it’s not worth talking about – if we’re lucky, we’ll have “better news” next year).
And yet others, Hansen, etc. have chosen option 5, at the same time furtively massaging the temperature record, in an attempt to “hide the decline”.
And then, to make matters worse, we’ve had record cold winters across the northern hemisphere (where most folks live) plus unusual cold spells in South America, at the same time as the “keepers of the global temperature construct” are telling us it is almost a record warm year.
To make matters worse, there have been several revelations of “data bending” and outright lying in IPCC reports on the projected impacts of climate change, and no one seriously believes the results of insider whitewashing attempts.
As a result, there has been a fatal loss of credibility in IPCC and the so-called “mainstream climate scientists”.
This all happened very quickly. Just a few years ago, the “mainstream” scientists and DAGW advocates were basking in the glory of Nobel Peace Prizes (as well as Oscars for their AGW “documentaries”), the mainstream media were fully on board, politicians were already licking their chops at the thought of global carbon taxes and the multi-billion dollar AGW bandwagon was rolling along full speed.
Sic transit Gloria.
It must all be distressing for you to watch.
Max
“I’m not advocating that anyone pay higher taxes”
Yes but there’s no point agreeing with me just yet. Personally I prefer that everyone gets a carbon quota, which they can sell if they don’t use, so that may need some discussion.
…………….
Yes it is “distressing” in a way. You’re right about that.
I feel a bit like a doctor in a psychiatric ward who’s learning the hard way that there is no point presenting rational arguments to severely delusional patients.
Every global warming zealot that I’ve ever spoken to or read has adocated “making them pay” through higher taxes………directly or indirectly.
By the way Max, the “sustainable energy trust fund”, set up by government using utilities as tax collector to extort money is another scam with the money being diverted to line the pocket of politicians and used for purposes that have nothing to do with energy…………sustainable or otherwise.
Just another method for government to confiscate personal property (peoples wages) to redistribute wealth and enrich themselves.
Onewould think that uber-rich “environmentalists like Al Gore and Prince Charles would fund these “green” projects to “save the planet”…….but the truth is that no one is willing to waste money on these boondoggles…….which is why property must be stolen from the people to pay for them.
The Climate Trust Scam
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3515
PeterM
You wrote:
Before getting into the “discussion” of any nitty-gritty details, I think a few basic questions need to be answered:
1. “Gets a carbon quota” from WHOM?
2. Is the “carbon quota granting” organization democratically elected?
3. If so, WHO elects them?
4. If not, what is their source of LEGITIMACY?
5. Have the electorates of the all the many countries around the world who are involved in this scheme granted this body the AUTHORITY to grant carbon quotas based on a free, democratic process?
6. If not, WHO granted them this authority and within what legal jurisprudence was this done?
7. Do you envision this as a VOLUNTARY democratic program for those who are truly concerned about human CO2 emissions (like you), open to joining or leaving at any time at individual discretion?
8. Or do you see it as an autocratically edicted top-down MANDATORY program, covering even those who are not at all concerned about human CO2 emissions or who feel that this is all a waste of effort (like Brute or me)?
9. If participation in this scheme is MANDATORY, on which legal basis has this been determined by whom to be so?
10. Who will ENFORCE this system?
11. How will this system be ENFORCED (prosecution of violators with possible fines, imprisonment, execution)?
12. Which LEGAL BODY will carry out the prosecution and under which jurisprudence?
13. Who will ADMINISTER the issuing of carbon quotas?
14. If a new body will be required to do the ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT of this scheme, to whom will this body be accountable?
15. What voice will the taxpaying electorate have in all this?
16. How many degrees C warming will be avoided by year 2100 directly through the implementation of this system, assuming it can be implemented by 2015 and specifically how do you envision this reduction to occur?
Please answer these basic questions.
Once we’ve cleared them up, we can get into more detail.
Max
Max,
You do raise many practical issue which do need to be worked through.
Your last point (16), is probably the one that should have been first on your list and it can be answered in quite a straightforward way.
Multiplying the quota per individual and the numbers of individuals receiving that quota gives the total annual emission of CO2. Obviously if it is too high it won’t have any effect. I’d suggest it should pitched at keeping CO2 emissions constant, to start with. Though the scientific advice is that they will need to be reduced to achieve cuts by 2050.
The world that Peter Martin proposes is a very, very dark place.