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.
You really think the “scientific community” would embrace that?
Not a snowball’s chance in hell…….there is too much money at stake.
The global warming industry now encompasses the “scientic community” as well as General Electric, Honeywell, The University System and all forms of government funded research.
Put it this way Pete……if the threat of war were to disappear tomorrow, what would happen to the defense industry?
ALL:
I see that amongst the uproar over that Stieg et al Antarctica study and its rebuttals etc, that some iconic science journals get a severe hammering for sloppy per review and attitude over at WUWT today.
I was amused last week by the following pictures that say it all! Interesting that Stieg shows the peninsular as cooler than the flaming hot bulk of West Antarctica, and other “differences” over the years
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-viewpoint-on-the-antarctic-warming-debate/#more-33962
Peter Martin:
I’m relieved to read your assertion that you have not been a school teacher!
Brute
You mentioned the many powerful interest groups already lined up at the taxpayer-funded AGW money-trough.
This represents tens of billions of dollars annually, but is peanuts today compared to what it would be if a global carbon tax were really implemented, and all this money were available for politicians and bureaucrats to shuffle around.
The “Carbon Tax Center” tells us:
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2010/06/03/govt-panel-estimates-cost-of-c02-20t-and-rising/
As we all know, taxes almost invariably end up being considerably higher than originally estimated (or admitted).
Let’s say the same will hold for “carbon taxes” once they are implemented.
The world emits roughly 30 Gt CO2 per year. At the stated upper limit of $136 per ton of CO2, the carbon tax represents $4 trillion per year.
That is a lot of money.
How will this cost be divided?
Let’s say it’s the top economies (the industrially developed nations with a per capita GDP exceeding $5,000 per year) pay this tax based on their CO2 emissions and the remaining “poorer” nations whose per capita GDP is below $5,000 per year (including giants, such as China and India) get a “free ride”.
How would such a scheme work out? (see table below)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/5454813734_ef85009438_b.jpg
The “wealthy” nations of this world emit around two-thirds of the total human CO2, yet they represent only around 28% of the total population.
However, the average “carbon efficiency” of their economies (GDP per ton CO2) is 5 times as high as that of the “non-wealthy” nations.
If these nations cover the cost of the global carbon tax, this will mean that every man, woman and child living in these “wealthy” nations will pay $2,100 per year on average (ranging from $4,350 per person in the USA to only around $600 p.p. in the “wealthy” nations of Latin America).
On average, the cost of the carbon tax will represent around 10% of the GDP for the populations of the “wealthy” nations.
When groups like the “Carbon Tax Center” throw out numbers, they do not tell us the whole story, because it is so horrible.
Max
Brute
Back to carbon taxes.
If you want to read how the “Carbon Tax Center” sees the justification for and implementation of a global carbon tax read
http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#why
The logic is so goofy it hurts!
Max
Brute,
I was just wondering if conventional science can possibly do anything at all to convince you that they are right on either, or both, their positions on AGW or Darwinian Evolutionary theory?
Is one more likely that the other?
Max,
I hope that you can trust Brute to answer this question himself!
Max,
Just so you don’t feel excluded I’ll give you a question for you to think about.
I’ll give you the compliment of saying that you are the brightest of the resident contrarians on here, so there must be more hope for you than some of the others :-)
So say at some point you were to be convinced that CO2 emissions did need to be reduced. Do you think you could bring yourself to accept that, at least temporarily, just for the sake of argument?
What measures would you feel would be the most effective in bringing this about?
ALL,
Whoops, further my 3602, things keep moving concerning the sloppy peer review, & scientific ethics etc, of Nature & Science journals. (putting it in the kindest terms).
I meant:
The Spectator on the Antarctic Ice Capades
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/the-spectator-on-the-antarctic-ice-capades/#more-34203
But there is an additional article that is rather relevant too;
Peer Review, Pal Review, and Broccoli
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/peer-review-pal-review-and-broccoli/#more-34221
PeterM
Thanks for kudos.
A very good hypothetical question.
You are aware that I am not particularly concerned about the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 315 ppmv to 390 ppmv since reliable measurements were started at Mauna Loa in 1958.
This is because I have not been convinced by the data out there that this has been the primary driver of the apparent increase in our “global temperature” of a fraction of a degree C over this period, nor that there are any data that would suggest that this has represented any sort of a problem for humanity.
But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I had really become convinced that atmospheric CO2 was the principal reason for the observed temperature increase of less than one degree C.
Secondly, let’s assume that I had become convinced by the data out there of the rather counterintuitive notion that an increase in the global average temperature construct was a very bad thing for our society rather than a good thing.
And thirdly, let’s assume that I had become convinced by calculations based on some hard numbers that humanity really could significantly change our planet’s climate by reducing atmospheric CO2 content.
(Are you still with me in my hypothetical assumption here, Peter? Good. I thought so.)
If these assumptions were all true, I would first look for the primary cause of human CO2 emissions.
Is this fossil fuel combustion for electrical power generation?
Is this motor fuel combustion for transportation?
Is it natural gas or fuel oil combustion for industrial or domestic heating?
Etc.
Assuming, then, that I had concluded, based on the data out there, that it was fossil fuel use for electrical power generation, I would look at alternate (non fossil-fuel) sources of energy for this.
The first that logically comes to mind today is conventional nuclear fission.
This is unfortunately saddled with a very negative public image, as a result of real “spent fuel” disposal problems and a concerted fear-mongering action by various environmental activists (unfortunately quite similar to the fear-mongering actions of the AGW crowd today – possibly even by many of the same actors).
But, assuming the damage done by these fear-mongers could be overcome, governmental and legal restrictions on the construction of new nuclear power plants could be eliminated and the spent fuel problem could be largely resolved by new fast breeder technology (with or without thorium), I would see nuclear fission as the main alternate to a CO2 producing source of electrical energy, with some notable caveats.
For security reasons I would not encourage every tin-horn dictatorship (for example, in Africa, the Middle East or Asia) to have access to nuclear fission technology as these underdeveloped nations pull their populations out of abject poverty by installing a reliable energy infrastructure, so any new power generation plants in these regions would have to be based on conventional fossil fuel based technology.
But even with these limitations, the switch to safe and reliable nuclear fission for electrical power generation in the democratic developed world (as is done in France) would represent a reduction in the growth of CO2 generation in the future.
A second, longer-term approach would be to gradually replace motor fuels from petroleum based products to electrical battery drives based on nuclear power. (I do not believe that hydrogen as a motor fuel is a real, viable alternate for both economic and safety reasons.) This step would still require the development of improved batteries, which do not exist today. But the economic pressure of high-cost imported petroleum products will drive this development, without necessarily having any governmental pressure.
Just looking at the figures superficially, Peter, I think these actions could help us level off long-term atmospheric CO2 concentration to somewhere around 500 to 600 ppmv by the year 2100.
And this could be achieved gradually, without any major disruption to our society and our standard of living, at the same time allowing the developing nations, such as China, India, Brazil, etc. to continue their development and the poorest nations to develop an energy infrastructure to pull their populations out of abject poverty.
And, finally, together with increased oil and gas exploration and development activities worldwide (including shale and tar sands) it would enable the world to slowly reduce its dependence on imported petroleum products from an unstable Middle East.
So this could truly be a win-win situation for everyone.
What do you think, Peter?
Do you have other thoughts on this?
Max
Max,
Level of emissions to “somewhere around 500 to 600 ppmv by the year 2100”? That’s what is likely under a business-as-usual scenario.
However, suppose the true position is, and further suppose that somehow you come to accept it to be correct, that we really can’t go any higher than 450ppmv and even then it can’t be allowed to stay that high for an extended period of time.
You’d think we’d all be stuffed and we just couldn’t possibly do anything to avert a climate catastrophe?
PeterM as one of those with less intelligence could I play please?
For me to be convinced that manmade emissions of CO2 drive the climate and are causing dangerous warming the following would need to happen.
A thorough study of past CO2 concentrations is needed, going back millions of years and not just a few hundred or a few thousand. Also a cross correlation between sediments and ice be used to ensure confidence of the concentration and the timeline. The reason for this is the notion that we have caused something exceptional since the start of the industrial revolution is far too convenient and I don’t believe climate scientists are being rigorous enough.
Secondly once we were more confident about past concentrations we need a better past temperature reconstruction. Tree rings are out of the question, just as they were way back when the IPCC suggested they were unreliable. And we need transparency with regards to the instrumented temperature record and no more manipulation of that record.
Once we were confident of these numbers we need to explain what happened in the past and why. If we can’t work that out then I bet we have no idea about what’s going on today.
The place I am in Peter is that the CO2 theory cannot currently explain the past cooling’s and warming’s. I know that every other TV science program I watch explains somehow there was an increase in CO2 concentration to explain each warming but they always fudge where the CO2 came from, and never explain the cooling, that preceded it. And they never relate past concentrations to todays. I am a firm believer in “Occam’s razor” and so believe there are simple explanations for all natural phenomena and that we mere mortals have a long way to go to understanding our natural environment. (My word simple here doesn’t ignore the fact the an individual process could be complicated and beyond most peoples understanding)
All of the above comes before we even get to the ridiculous feedback theory, which is a complication that has been invented by man to explain something we don’t understand. That it is false is obvious to all but the most ardent supporters of AGW. Too many different things must happen for the feedback theory to work, and even worse for the theory, other things must not happen. Likelihood = little more than zero. So far no one has been able to provide any experimental data that supports the CO2 feedback theory or quantify that other misnomer “climate sensitivity” and as temperatures are currently going down, this further damages the theory. This is all before we look at CO2 itself and realise that even if concentrations were to double again to 800ppm, CO2 has very little additional ability to absorb any further infrared radiation, so its ability to further warm the world is minimal.
Peter,
Let’s just start with the premise that………… “CO2 is harmful to the environment”………….do you really believe that?
Come on Peter…….really? Wow, you certainly are gullible.
You seem to be a marginally educated fellow………..(albeit a self described “physicist”)…………you really believe that plant food is harmful?
I think that Gore and his merry band of Marxists could have come up with a better doomsday prophecy in a stealth effort to redistribute wealth and targeted say, carbon monoxide.
Look Peter, there have been hucksters around since the beginning of time selling garbage theories and predicting this or that in order to separate people from their money for a myriad of reasons……….the global warming agenda is no different.
Wake up.
I had a conversation yesterday regarding ethanol levels in gasoline (petrol). The US Environmental Protection Agency is about to raise the level of ethanol mandated from 10% to 15%.
All other arguments aside………it boils down to this………..is burning our food a good idea?
Break things down to their most basic components……….ask yourself the root question………..
No, burning food is not a good idea and plant food is not harmful.
Max,
Re: 3603
I don’t see mainland China or India on the “who pays how much?” Global Marxist Tax spreadsheet?
Didn’t China just overtake Japan as the #2 economy in the world? Shouldn’t they be forced to kick in their “fair share” of the global carbon theft shakedown ring?
China overtakes Japan as world’s second-largest economy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/14/china-second-largest-economy
Oh and Pete……..one addendum to my 3611……….If I did swallow the fraud that CO2 is harmful I’d also have to be stupid enough to believe that government(s) would solve “the problem” if we allowed them to continually steal our personal property (my earnings) and that all of the nations of the world would cooperate in a global effort to reduce CO2 (without cheating)……
Right!
Lastly, I’d also have to silly in the head to believe that “mankind can control the weather”.
Those are (some) of the realities of what you say you believe regarding this topic………….
I noticed that The Carbon Tax Center listed in your #3604, is ummmmmmm……..TAX EXEMPT.
PeterM
You seem alarmed that the practical scenario, which I described (3608), to reduce the amount of CO2 does not meet your arbitrary requirement of resulting in an atmospheric CO2 level of 450 ppmv or less.
Where did you dredge up this arbitrary figure?
I hope it is not “coal death train” Hansen’s silly “tipping point” figure (before he ratcheted this down to 350 ppmv), is it? This figure is simply an unsubstantiated fear-monger’s “doomsday prediction”, as you know.
I have not made the calculation regarding the level of atmospheric CO2 that would be reached if the scenario I outlined were followed, as I am not really concerned about the CO2 level, as you apparently are, and was only trying to give you an answer to your hypothetical question (3606).
It all depends very much on what the “residence time” of CO2 in our system REALLY is. IPCC puts it at “centuries”, but this is simply a flat-out guess. Segalstad puts it at 5-15 years based on many different analyses using several different methods.
Let’s say it’s 50 years.
Then the scenario I painted would most likely result in atmospheric CO2 at below 450 ppmv by 2100.
If, on the other hand, it is “infinity” (as I assumed earlier), then this scenario would probably result in CO2 level of a bit more than 500 ppmv, while IPCC estimates its lowest slow growth scenario B1 at 580 ppmv and others much higher, in two cases even miraculously exceeding all the carbon contained in all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet!
So I’d guess that the scenario I outlined could realistically result in CO2 level leveling off at a peak of somewhere between 450 and 500 ppmv before starting a slow decline as fossil fuel consumption is slowly phased out.
The calculation would actually be quite easy to make, once one cranks in an assumed “residence” time for CO2 in our climate system.
To your last question (3609):
I have concluded (based on all the data out there) a) that we are not facing a “climate catastrophe”, b) that we are therefore not “stuffed” and (even if we were facing catastrophic climate change) c) there is nothing we can do to change our planet’s climate.
You have been unable to convince me otherwise, despite all your posturing.
Max
Brute
(3614)
Yeah. Maybe they are listed as a “religious organization” (and therefore exempt from paying taxes).
Max
Brute
I agree that the world’ largest “CO2 polluter” (China) should not get a free ride. Nor should India (or Nigeria or Indonesia, for that matter).
But I figured this whole “carbon tax” was all a part of a forced redistribution of the wealth (disguised as making affluent nations pay for their past climate sins), so I put the arbitrary cut-off at a per capita GDP of $5,000 per year (both China and India are below this level).
The main point I wanted to make, though, is that we are talking about cutting the per capita GDP (or affluence) of inhabitants of the developed world by around 10% overall by imposing this tax as proposed by those loons at the “Carbon Tax Center”.
I have a real hard time imagining that these people (most of whom live in democratic societies) are going to support such a tax when it comes time to vote on it (directly or through their elected representative), no matter what CTC says.
Max
If anyone tells you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
he may be a communist!
I love you Pete…….
Your imbecilic ranting amuses me.
PeterM
In my earlier post I outlines the basis for a gradual fossil fuel phase-out program, NOT based on a carbon cap, NOT based on a carbon tax, but just based on good economics, “business as usual” and the political will to build new nuclear power plants and “drill, baby, drill” to develop new fossil fuel reserves.
Here are the assumptions:
– Global population increases at 0.28% per year, reaching 9 billion by 2100
– Overall energy demand continues to increase at 0.4% per year until 2100
– Construction of new coal-fired power plants stopped in 2015
– All new electrical power from nuclear
– Starting in 2030, older coal-fired plants get phased out at around 3% per year
– By 2070 there are no more coal-fired plants in operation
– Oil for transport grows at 0.4% per year until 2030
– Starting 2030, half of all new automobiles are battery operated (power from nuclear)
– Starting 2050, two-thirds of all new automobiles are battery operated (power from nuclear)
– Starting 2070, all new automobiles are battery operated (power from nuclear)
– By 2100 there are no more oil-fueled automobiles on the road
– Natural gas consumption grows by 0.4% per year until 2030
– Starting 2030, natural gas consumption grows at 0.2% per year
– Starting 2050, natural gas consumption flattens out
– Starting 2070, natural gas consumption decreases by 0.4% per year
– “Half life” of CO2 in system = 50 years, i.e. “decay rate” ~ 1.0%/year
On the above basis, starting with the 2011 CO2 level of 390 ppmv, this will increase to around 450 ppmv by 2100 and begin to decrease slightly after that.
With no fossil fuel phase-out, the calculated CO2 concentration by 2100 would be 559 ppmv.
The theoretical net equilibrium impact of all this on temperature by 2100 would be a reduction of 1.0C, using the exaggerated 2xCO2 estimate of IPCC of 3C, and making the absurd IPCC assumption that CO2 is the only thing that influences our climate.
Assuming a lower 2xCO2 estimate of 1C, the net impact would be around 0.3C.
It’s doable based on normal development, provided adding new nuclear capacity can be politically doable.
It assumes that fully acceptable electrical drive cars will be available by 2030 with no limitations due to limited rare earth reserves..
It will prolong the life of coal, oil and gas reserves, without the need for any political obstacles to developing and exploiting these (oil shales, offshore, Alaska, Arctic, etc.)
It will keep CO2 level at around 450 ppmv maximum.
No panic needed, Peter.
No carbon cap or carbon tax or government subsidies needed (it’s driven by simple market economics).
Just smart “business as usual” incorporating a gradual fossil fuel phase-out program as outlined above.
Hope this has answered your question.
Max
NASA Climate Scientist: Global Warming Does Not Cause Extreme Weather Events
The crazed crowd of AGW believers, fanatics, disciples and propagandists have for years wrongly claimed that global warming causes more severe weather events. As C3 readers are very aware, the actual empirical evidence does not support that claim whatsoever. In addition, even the AGW theory does not support the claim that global warming will cause extreme weather.
That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist:
As Luboš Motl (one of the world’s premier physicists) explains in his article, the global warming theory better supports the claim that less severe climate extremes will be the result of warming. Why? AGW theory calls for the polar areas to warm more rapidly than the tropical areas. That result means the temperature difference between polar and tropics is lessened. If the temperature difference shrinks, the potential for severe weather shrinks also.
In a nutshell, that is actual weather science that all scientists agree on.
Soooo, why does the speculation persist that global warming causes more severe weather despite known science and empirical evidence? Well, the UN’s IPCC political agenda requires a propaganda strategy of continuous lies and misconceptions to take root and thrive.
Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to convince policymakers and the public to go along with draconian economic policies that reducing CO2 emissions require. And, as the crazed belief in the Soviet Union proved conclusively in the 20th century, leftists/liberals relish in the ‘Big Lie’ concept, in all its anti-science trappings.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/02/nasa-climate-scientist-global-warming-does-not-cause-extreme-weather-events.html
Max,
The 450 ppmv target wasn’t “dredged up” as you put it . It comes from this IEA report http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=290
I’d have thought you would have known that.
If you are a genuine rational sceptic, as you claim, then you have to face the possibility that the IPCC and IEA may be correct. Just suppose they are – and that the evidence you require to change your mind may just be around the corner.
What then? How would you suggest that the 450ppmv target be met? What measures would you put in place?
Max I’m intrigued at your figures for increasing CO2 concentrations in #3620. I’m not saying they are wrong its just that I can find no convincing study that demonstrates that the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is entirely down to man made emissions. I have no doubt that changes in land use and all the other activities we are engaged in changes the balance of Nature slightly, but it is just to simple and linear to assume every bit of CO2 we produce goes strait into the atmosphere as an increase. What do you think?
PeterM
You are beginning to get on my nerves with your silly waffles (and I am beginning to suspect that you are a “troll” here, rather than someone who wishes to conduct an intelligent dialog on the IPCC debate).
To paraphrase your stupid remark:
I read the IEA blurb you cited. It pulls the 450 ppmv number out of the air as its “scenario” without any real justification or substantiation of how it got there.
Now:
Now I’ll put this stupid sentence into normal English (rather than silly double-talk).
I have shown you that a perfectly natural transition away from fossil fuels will very likely occur, as these become more expensive and cheaper alternates are developed.
NO carbon quotas or caps are needed to achieve this.
NO carbon tax is required.
It’s all based simply on economics and good business practice, with the one major caveat that the governments of this world stop blocking the construction of new nuclear power plants.
With the phase-out as I have shown, and with the assumption that the increase we see in atmospheric CO2 today (around 2.2 ppm/year or 0.4% CAGR) is due solely to human CO2 emissions (the IPCC assumption), the CO2 concentration will be around 450 ppmv and starting to reduce slightly by year 2100.
If no fossil fuel phase-out were to occur, an CO2 kept increasing at the current CAGR of 0.4% per year, the atmospheric CO2 would be 559 ppmv by 2100.
Again using the silly myopic IPCC fixation on CO2 as the main driver of Earth’s climate, the phase-out would theoretically result in a net reduction of warming (compared to no phase-out) of between 0.3C and 1.0C by year 2100.
So there you have it, Peter.
1. THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS.
2. The “magic number” of 450 ppmv CO2 will NOT be exceeded, because the natural shift away from fossil fuels will occur as cheaper alternates are developed.
3. WE WILL NOT ALL DIE FROM A “VENUS EFFECT”.
4. AND WE DON’T NEED ANY CARBON CAPS, QUOTAS OR TAXES TO GET THERE.
GOT IT?
PLEASE ADVISE IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN ALL THIS THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND.
Max
ALL
1) I’ve often wondered how some processes at the UN go so awry, or even how some of the members manage to cope without nodding off. Did you hear about this?
Indian minister delivers Portugal’s speech at the UN [In error] http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/939106–indian-minister-delivers-portugal-s-speech-at-the-un
This report contains two video links, the first crisp and short, the second somewhat longer and buried in procedural crap to start with
2) Did you see this op-ed?:
Debunking the Antarctica myths
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6706648/debunking-the-antarctica-myths.thtml
Does anyone wonder how the Stieg version of Antarctica could possibly be published in an iconic “Science Journal”?