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.
Max,
Yes, of course, all fossil fuels will peak at some point. That includes coal, and oil contained in sands and shale.
Just when that may happen isn’t yet clear but it’s not going to be any time soon. Certainly not for the foreseeable future. Coal production actually ‘peaked’ in the UK in 1913 but the subsequent decline may have been more to do with a switch over to cheaper supplies of oil than other factors.
So it looks like we are in a situation where many countries like Australia, South Africa, Brazil, with abundant supplies are just going to want to carry on burning it. By the time its all used up the atmosphere and climate will be stuffed. You don’t like carbon taxes, or cap and trade. OK, fair enough, if you can suggest an alternative mechanism for encouraging a switch over to nuclear power.
But it seems you can’t and you just don’t have an answer to this question other than to say you don’t want to talk about it any more.
PeterM
You are missing the point.
We are not discussing “peak oil” here.
Instead, we are discussing the likely trend away from fossil fuels to other options for natural economic reasons, namely to nuclear energy for electrical power generation as well as new, improved efficiency batteries for automotive use, again based on nuclear power.
This is going to happen, Peter, whether you deny it today or not. It will happen because nuclear is today (and will be in the future) less expensive than fossil fuels, as I demonstrated to you.
The only thing that could have stood in the way of this natural development is a political aversion to nuclear power, caused by the same sort of irrational hysterical fear, which we now see regarding atmospheric CO2. The French have overcome this irrational fear to nuclear power today, and I am sure that the rest of the world will be able to do so before long. Don’t you agree?
And, as a result of this natural trend, it is quite likely that we will see atmospheric CO2 leveling off at somewhere around 450 ppmv, as I demonstrated to you.
Then there is Brazil (which you mentioned). The sugar cane ethanol there is another non fossil fuel solution , which seems to be working quite well.
And this all obviously does not represent anything near to a “disaster scenario”, does it?
Use your head, Peter.
Don’t get all wrapped up in disaster scenarios or silly carbon tax proposals, which will achieve nothing and will never happen anyway, because nobody wants (or needs) them.
Try being realistic, if you can.
If you can show me with logical arguments why my conclusions are not correct, please do so.
Max
Max,
As I’ve pointed out, you’ve assumed a switch from fossil fuels to nuclear which isn’t at all likely if the market is left to its own devices.
There is this reference on the question:
Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows Nov 2008
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3863.long
I haven’t seen any serious challenge to their findings, which are that to stabilise at no greater than levels of 450ppmv, emissions need to peak by the year 2020 and from then fall to approximately 50% of current rates by the year 2050.
And that ain’t going to happen the ways things are going!
You were quite right in your original assertion that we are heading for atmospheric CO2 levels of 600ppmv and beyond.
Sorry, Peter. You are grasping at straws.
I have shown you with published cost estimates for OECD nations why the shift away from fossil fuels to nuclear will occur naturally as market economics push into this direction over the next several decades.
France has already made this shift and other nations will certainly follow. Germany has made the first timid steps by extending the moratorium on nuclear generation. Switzerland has approved the first new nuclear plant site. In the USA there have been 16 license applications to build 24 new nuclear plants with 6 of these expected to go on line within the next seven years (this follows a 30-year period, during which essentially no new reactors were built).
Many industrially developed nations have been hampered by governments, which are afraid to tackle the anti-nuke eco-activist lobby, but I am assuming (as you are, too) that this hurdle will not last much longer and that the developed world will join France in adding new nuclear capacity.
I am also convinced a) that nuclear costs will become even lower, as new technologies currently in development are commercialized and b) that pollution restrictions for coal firing will become more stringent (for true pollutants, such as SO2, NOx, Hg, particulates, other metals, etc.) and abatement measures more costly, further increasing the slight economic advantage, which nuclear has today.
It is also very likely that higher fossil fuel costs plus improved battery technology will make electric or hybrid cars more attractive over the next several decades, resulting in a gradual shift away from petroleum-based motor fuels.
Those are the facts out there, Peter.
And they tell me that it is very likely that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise for the next few decades, but then level off at around 450 ppmv, as human CO2 emissions sink to the level of the natural decay rate of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I know this does not fit your “belief system”, since there is no anthropogenic “doomsday” in sight, but you’ll just have to accept that this is what is most likely to happen. And it is most likely to happen without the need for a direct or indirect global “carbon tax” (which, IMHO, has a much lower probability of ever happening).
Max
PeterM
Attached is the link to the release concerning the new applications for construction and operation licenses for new nuclear power plants in the USA, which I mentioned above (If you read this in detail, you’ll see that France’s EdF has got a stake in this.)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41aiii_COL_applications.html
Max
Max,
Yes you are probably right ins saying “..the shift away from fossil fuels to nuclear will occur naturally as market economics push into this direction over the next several decades”.
How many is ‘several’? Your calculation in posting #3020 assumes: “Construction of new coal-fired power plants stopped in 2015”
So, unless ‘several’ can be interpreted to mean 0.4, and ‘push in this direction’ to mean ‘almost completely change direction’, we just can’t wait around for ‘naturally’.
PeterM
OK. We agree that the trend is away from coal and toward nuclear for power generation.
Now we are discussing whether this trend in the industrially developed world plus large developing economies will commence in 2015 or later.
Maybe it will take until 2020 to start, or even 2030. But it will happen, just as the trend for cars will be away from petroleum-based fuels to hybrid or all electric cars as battery technology improves.
And, as this occurs naturally, CO2 emissions will decrease until they are at the same rate as the natural decay of CO2 in the atmosphere.
My calculation shows that this will happen around 2060 at an estimated CO2 level of 462 ppmv based on the assumptions made. It could happen in 2070 at a CO2 level slightly higher than this based on different assumptions, but the main point is that is will occur naturally, that there will be an upper limit of atmospheric CO2 and that this will lie somewhere below the level of one-third more CO2 compared to today or 520 ppmv.
At this level, using IPCC’s exaggerated 2xCO2 impact of 3C (and assuming that all other things are equal), we would see an equilibrium increase over today’s temperature of 1.2C. At a less exaggerated 2xCO2 assumption of 1C, this would be around 0.4C. If Spencer and Lindzen are right about climate sensitivity, it would be around 0.2C
Clearly, these theoretical temperature increases are nothing to worry about.
And that was the whole point to start with, Peter.
Max
PeterM
You added some caveats and then opined:
Sounds like a beautiful statement of faith, but the truth of the matter is that we have no other option than to “wait around for ‘naturally’”. Imposing a global carbon tax is not a realistic option, as I am sure you must be able to see.
Copenhagen failed to do so, as did Cancun.
The world’s largest emitter of CO2 (China) is not going to accept such a tax.
The world’s second largest emitter (USA) is also not going to accept this.
The EU has done a lot of talking, but talk is cheap.
All the other nations are waiting to see what the US and China do.
So, can’t you see that a (direct or indirect) global carbon tax is a pipe dream that will never materialize?
Simply saying “we just can’t wait around” (or, presumably, “we’re stuffed”, as you put it earlier) is silly.
We have no other option but to “wait around”.
And while we are “waiting around”, we’d best light a firecracker under the rear ends of our politicians and bureaucrats to get them to start authorizing nuclear plant permits rather than dragging their feet in deference to hysterical anti-nuke lobby groups, many of which were run by the same idiots that are fueling the current AGW hysteria.
And, while we “wait around”, we’d also be wise to plan for the eventual implementation of adaptation measures to any climate changes nature throws at us, to be implemented IF and WHEN they occur.
Max
Max,
It looks to me that you are stuck in a circular logic loop of your own creation. You’ve now agreed that the switch from coal to nuclear doesn’t look to be starting any time time soon, and that we’ve just no other option than to wait around and see what happens.
Ergo it must be alright to do that. Ergo all figures for climate sensitivity which are in the region of 3 degrees must be too high.
But I sense that deep down you know it and that it may possibly be wrong. Which is why you are saying that politicians and bureaucrats need a firecracker under them. Well I’m not sure that I’ve any more faith in politicians and bureaucrats than you have to get the job done properly on a case by case basis. But if its clearly and demonstrably cheaper to build and run nuclear power plants than coal powered plants that’s probably the best way to ensure things will go in the way they should. But, unfortunately at present that’s not quite the case.
The debate is split along ideological lines with the left still opposed to nuclear power, although I would argue that there is no reason why they should be, and the right opposed to the basic science of climate change. There are just a few of us in the middle and although we may still have overall political differences there is no reason why we can’t agree to work together on this issue. James Hansen is certainly one, and if we do lose out to either extreme then we probably are well and truly stuffed! And its not silly at all to suggest that.
PeterM
Your last post (3684) shows me that you are apparently having a difficult time grasping what I have written.
It appears to me that this is not due to a lack of innate intelligence on your part, but because of an ingrained “dogmatic belief system” regarding AGW and its potential dangers to mankind unless immediate global political action is taken, which makes logical thinking impossible when it comes to this topic.
Let me reiterate what I have written in summary:
Coal will be replaced by nuclear for power generation (as it already has in France) as soon as the politicians and bureaucrats that have blocked it over the past 30 years get off of their duffs and start to grant permits for new plants. This appears to be happening in the USA today. It has happened in Switzerland. Even Germany has taken the first timid step in extending the moratorium on nuclear power. It is inevitable that it will happen in other countries, as well. And, if the German politicians are too afraid of a few green nuke opponents to do what makes sense, France can expand just across the Rhine and sell Germany all the power it needs.
At the same time, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that electrical and hybrid cars will be improved to the point that they become much more economically viable and popular than today, especially if petroleum prices continue to soar. And there is really no question that they will continue to soar, as ever more difficult and costly sources are exploited. Oil shale in the USA has great promise as the “next Saudi Arabia”, but this will require substantially higher oil prices to be economically viable. And then there is (as we are witnessing today) the inherent political instability of the nations in the regions that contain most of the currently producing reserves – so these more costly local sources will need to be exploited for strategic reasons. Finally, there is the promise of large-scale liquid biofuels (for example, from algae, as is being researched by several oil companies today).
These two inevitable trends will most likely result in a leveling off of atmospheric CO2 levels at somewhere between 450 and 500 ppmv levels by sometime in the second half of this century. This is my estimate, based on the assumptions I listed (which you have not tried to refute).
And this will mean that the net warming from added CO2 will most likely be limited to a somewhere between 0.4 to 1.2 degrees C above todays level by 2100 (all other things being equal – and, believe me, Peter, “all other things” are NOT very likely to be equal, as the past decade’s “lack of warming” despite record CO2 increase has demonstrated).
This will all happen without a carbon tax.
And, Peter, there will be no global carbon tax, as long as the two largest CO2 emitters (China and USA) are not in agreement to pay such a tax, no matter how much posturing and bluster comes from small players like the UK or Germany.
It’s all that simple, Peter.
We are not going to be fried because of our ever-growing CO2 emissions due to a never-ending addiction to fossil fuels any more than residents of Manchester were inundated in two meters of horse manure from the rapidly increasing number of horse carriages.
If you are unable to grasp this then I really can’t help you.
Max
Anyone? (= anyone still following this thread?):
I see by just flicking through very quickly, (with minimal reading), that the grindingly monotonous exchanges between Max and his Queensland friend trundle ever onwards, and I guess that they, mostly alone, in not too long, will score another grand total of 10,000 comments. (but for what purpose?)
Oh but:
Meanwhile, for something far-far more interesting; Judith Curry has stirred-up a hornet’s nest starting here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/#comment-45762
In a mere ~3 days (Three days + an hour) there have been over 3,000 comments, and she has had to divide it into five segments because of the astonishing traffic and progressive analysis of the comments.
Whilst much to my surprise, I would have thought that the hocky-stick manna-cheat was long dead and buried, Judith suddenly arose from a lingering on her objection to the scientific falsity in; “hiding the decline”. (in the various hocky sticks).
But; the wounds amongst rationalists seem to have flared up by Gavin Schmidt having the gross stupidity to mount a tawdry “defence”. Oh boy, I have not yet had the energy to read some 90%+ of the 3,000+ comments…… Sheez!
Oh, and if yous guys ever start to discuss anything interesting, please prod me with a wake-up call. (at least two of you have my Email address)
Bob_FJ
Hey Bob,
I’ve been following Judith Curry’s “hide the decline” blogs pretty closely, and, yes, this thread (3rd in a series) is getting an astounding number of comments.
She has asked for other examples of “hide the decline” “bad practices” – and she has gotten quite a bit of response to this request, including a couple of very good posts from a blogger named PaulM, to which I’ve also responded.
Good stuff, and, yes, more interesting than the ongoing debate here with your Queensland compatriot.
And I’ll agree with you that Gavin has really shot himself in the foot with his silly defensive tactics. But then, despite his obvious computer skills, he never was too good in putting together a coherent defense for his position on AGW. And he has always had the rather arrogant approach of simply censoring out anything on his blog site that hits too close to home in shooting down his own personal beliefs (as both you and I have experienced directly).
But, believe it or not, Bob, I think he now senses that he is losing the debate, and he is therefore getting increasingly defensive (and ineffectual).
It is fun watching it all play out, and Judith Curry is doing a great job, as far as I can see.
I may not agree with her on everything but hats off to this lady for her courage in trying to bring some rational thinking to this debate.
Max
Snow Falls on San Francisco After a 35-Year Wait
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27snow.html
Hmmmmmmm……..35 years……….But global warming experts Peter Martin, Al Gore and Jimmie Hansen tell us that the planet has been warming in recent decades and that global warming is “unstoppable”.
The nonsensical argument that “weather is not climate” is another fallacy. “Weather” is a small portion of cumulative observations that constitutes “climate”. The instances of cold weather “events” are increasing collectively, which together constitute “climate”.
Apparently, it hasn’t been cold enough to produce snow in San Fransissyco for 35 years……………today, it is.
Max,
Can you possibly conceive of any circumstances when you might consider some kind carbon of tax or cap and trade scheme to be needed? I suspect you can’t. Of course if your political opinions dictate these options to be off-limits, all you can then do is deny that there is any sort of problem, in the first place, in an attempt to maintain some semblance of rationality.
It appears that Mr Jones has sobered up enough to complain that we should move on to something more interesting. But the hockey stick? I vaguely remember doing all that ages ago.
This might qualify. There is an interesting development brewing up between Realclimate and Energy and Environment.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat
I wonder who’ll blink first?
PeterM
YES.
If it could be demonstrated with a high degree of probability (>90%), based on empirical scientific data:
a) that we are facing a serious potential problem as a result of human CO2 emissions
b) that imposing a carbon tax (direct or indirect) could avoid this serious potential problem and
c) that imposing this tax would be the most viable option to avoid the postulated potential problem
So far, neither condition a) or b) have been met, and c) has not even been discussed, so the answer today is NO.
Then there comes the 800-lb gorilla question: you ask whether a globally effective carbon tax might be “needed” (which is a nice hypothetical question), but not whether or not it “can be implemented”.
You have been unable to show me that this has any chance of ever happening, and I personally believe that it will never happen, for the reasons I have outlined earlier.
So the whole thing is very much a hypothetical question.
Max
PeterM
Since you appear to like hypothetical questions, let me ask you one:
All sounds a bit silly, doesn’t it?
And I agree with Bob. Let’s move on.
Max
Bob_FJ
Judith Curry’s blog has a good thread running on “what we agree”, with a lead article by Zeke Hausfather, who has written a lot about “climate change” and its dangers.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49432
The comments by Judith and the bloggers are interesting.
Max
33 degrees in San Jose (Southern California) lowest since 1897
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_17490259?source=rss&nclick_check=1
Brute
San Jose is just south of San Francisco, where there was apparently snow last night for the first time in over 30 years (your link).
The SF snow and the lowest temperature since 1897 in SJ are living proof of dangerous AGW at work, just like the cold weather we have had in Europe and you have had on the US east coast.
It’s all part of a major man-made catastrophe.
Just ask climate-guru, Al Gore.
Max
Max,
Max,
Well yes of course if the scientific advice was that CO2 emissions were benign then of course……
I’ve asked you this before but maybe you’ve thought of a better answer recently. What experimental tests would you suggest be performed to provide a more definitive answer to the AGW question?
And no you can’t have a spare Earth, or Earths, with which to perform double blind tests!
…………………….
So what do you think of EE’s latest move?
PeterM
No comment on EE.
We have just gone through a real-life 10-year “experiment”, Peter.
Physical observations:
– Increase of CO2 levels was at a record high.
– Temperature of the atmosphere (both at the surface and the troposphere) showed no warming trend.
– Upper ocean temperature also showed a slight cooling trend.
In other words, our “experiment” showed that our planet cooled (i.e. had a net loss of energy) despite record CO2 increase.
This “experiment” has falsified the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver of our climate (and that AGW is therefore a potential threat).
Of course, if the observed data can be scientifically refuted by other physical observations or experimentation, then this falsification of the “dangerous AGW hypothesis” can itself be falsified.
Max
Brute,We’ve been having some weather lately too. Summer officially ended here on 31/Jan and reports claim that the summer average temperatures throughout the State of Victoria were 1-3 C below average. It has not been all that kind to beachgoers and the thousands of people whom traditionally erect tent-cities over the long holidays at the beach-sides. It’s been kinda damp. It has been the only year that my solar hot water system has not blown-off huge amounts of scalding hot water on hot days…. not a drop this year. That’s because even on the odd hot day it has been cloudy or hazy. This summer in Melbourne, we only had 14 days over 30C, compared with 21 last year. And, it’s cool and raining again today.
I remember when I was working in the SF Bay area back in the 80’s that I was astonished to see one winter, very many Eucalyptus (Gum) trees where the leaves were all “frost-burnt” brown or as they used to say on the Goon show: deaded. But then, at that stage we were only a few years out of the period of cooling and not yet well into that of the recent catastrophic warming.
“Who are you gonna believe……..me or your lying eyes”? – Al Gore
We have another saying here in the United States………”Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining”…….
These two are usually referred to when some traveling salesman or huckster is making claims that are patently false or in the least, highly questionable to reasoned people.
Max,
We’ve been over the “last ten years” argument. So you’re saying that at the end of the year 2000 you accepted that AGW was a problem but not at the end of 2010? And you might change your mind again in another ten years depending on what happens to the temperature record in the meantime?
You raise an interesting point when you point out the difference between a carbon tax being needed and the possibility of it being implemented. The implication being that even if measures were needed they would still be impossible to implement? What’s your thinking behind that one?
I would have thought that as us human beings are intelligent animals we would be able to understand the implementation would necessarily follow necessity. So I’d say difficult to negotiate the details but not impossible.
Max, Reur 3692,
Thanks for the link to the Curry-Zeke Hausfather (?) thing. As you say, interesting, but it seems to have dried-up after only 380 posts. (all dated 26/Feb?) You certainly made some good contributions including some intercourse with the Wabbit. Keep up the good work.
Incidentally, I think the linked responses scheme is hopeless in general, but especially so on high traffic sites.
Your Queensland friend mentioned the E&E exchange with Gavin. Well, this analysis at WUWT, rather puts it into perspective
RealClimate’s over-the-top responseGavin must be having a bad hair day, because this headline is most certainly over the top:
E&E threatens a libel suitNow compare the headline to the letter that was sent, bold emphasis mine:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/22/realclimates-over-the-top-response/#more-34555
But then, we wouldn’t want the Guardian to not make a big story out of something that is not there, would we?
I also notice that your friend continues to demonstrate lack of comprehension on the Judith Curry series on “Hide the decline”. He appears to think that the debate is about the Hockey-stick, but of course he has never been shy to comment on things that it appears he could not have read