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
Let’s do a bit of arithmetic:
2 * 390 ppmv = 780 ppmv
Wow! That’s a lot of CO2!
But will we ever get there?
For sure, we won’t by year 2100, even if we continue at the rate of increase we have seen since 1958 (or over the past 5 years) = a CAGR of around 0.4% per year, despite the likelihood that population growth will slow to around one-fourth the CAGR we saw from 1960-2010, as the UN estimates (9 billion by 2100). But if we did continue at this CAGR despite the slowdown in population growth, we would theoretically reach around 560 ppmv by 2100. This is very close to IPCC “scenario” B1.
OK, in view of the projected slowdown of population growth this seems like quite a bit of a stretch, but is it realistic otherwise?
We now “add” around 4.5 ppmv from human activity, but only 2.2 ppmv shows up in the atmosphere. The difference of 2.3 ppmv checks pretty closely with the upper range of half-life estimates of 120 years, or 0.58% annual reduction based on average concentration. So once our annual emissions are reduced to a level of 0.58% of the concentration, CO2(in) = CO2(out), and the atmospheric concentration levels off, right?.
Based on the assumptions I listed, this should happen in the second half of this century at a level of around 450 to 500 ppmv.
So, with this new knowledge, I’ve had to revise downward my earlier estimate of the upper limit ever to be reached on atmospheric CO2 from 600-700 ppmv to 450-500 ppmv.
But back to IPCC. In addition to the B1 “scenario”, IPCC has all kinds of really silly “scenarios” in the AR4 WG1 SPM report, including two (A2 and A1F1), in which the CO2 CAGR increases to 3 to 4 times the present rate and more CO2 is added to the atmosphere by 2100 than exists in all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet! Ouch!
These are the cases with the alarming projected increases in temperature, but not to worry, Peter. These cases obviously violate the laws of conservation of matter and are absurd,along with the upper warming projections (the ones the press had so much fun with).
It is beyond me how IPCC could be so foolish as to include physically impossible “scenarios” in a supposedly serious report.
But I guess if you are trying hard to sell a story (as Schneider once said) you have to choose between being honest and being effective in getting the desired message across – and IPCC chose effectiveness.
Max
Max,
Well of course the higher the level of CO2 get the less likely it is to double!
However, it is rising at about 0.5% per year so, at that rate, the doubling time 70/0.5 =140 years from now.
Incidentally that is a general rule.Just divide the % rise into 70 to get the doubling time. You can try that out for yourself if you like.
Doubling of CO2 is usually taken to mean from pre-industrial levels. 280ppmv going to 560ppmv and this will happen by the end of the century on a business as usual scenario.
Many scientists think that the current level of 390ppmv is already too high
http://www.350.org/
PeterM
No. CO2 is not increasing at 0.5% per year. Get your numbers right, Peter.
It has increased at a CAGR of around 0.4% per year since Mauna Loa started in 1958, and also over the most recent 5-year period.
If that rate continued, we would reach 560 ppmv by year 2100.
But it is unlikely that CO2 will continue to increase at the past CAGR for two reasons:
· Population growth to 2100 is expected to be at a CAGR of only one-sixth the 1960-2010 rate (0.28% vs. 1.7%)
· Fossil fuel prices are skyrocketing: coal is up 4x since 2000; oil is up 3x (excluding most recent spike)
So it is very likely that it will be well below 560 ppmv by year 2100.
We have beaten this to death, Peter, yet you keep coming back with new silly assertions and false numbers.
Give up on this discussion, Peter. It has gotten repetitive and extremely boring.
Max
Max,
You seem quite keen to define the first decade of the 20th century to be 2001 to 2010, so how about we use this time period?
I don’t want to nit-pick over 0.4% versus 0.5% but I think if you check the figures you’ll see that 0.5% is actually a slight underestimate.
Max,
You can’t say I don’t admit when I’m wrong. I did say that 0.5% per annum was a slight underestimate for the last decade, but I’ve just checked the figures and I do have to ‘fess up’ that it was a slight overestimate.
The actual calculation is
20*(389.78-371.07)/(389.78+371.07) = 0.492%
and you can see the figures for the CO2 concentrations, in ppmv at the start and end of the period in there.
PeterM
Yeah. You were a bit off on your calculation, as you admit.
First, the real method of calculating a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is different from yours, with answers also slightly different.
As I indicated to you, I calculated the CAGR over the entire 50+ year period since Mauna Loa started at 0.40% CAGR and over the past 5 years at 0.42% CAGR.
If I pick your (just as arbitrary) last 10 years I get a CAGR of 0.49%, as you have also gotten.
So the rate depends on the period taken, and there are clearly observed “bumps and grinds” along the way, with NOAA reporting annual increases most recently ranging from 1.57 ppmv to 2.53 ppmv, despite the fact that human CO2 emissions have not shown these variations on an annual basis.
You change the period and you might end up getting a slightly different rate (as you did).
But one thing is apparent: there is no real accelerating trend in the CAGR since Mauna Loa started.
If we use a CAGR of 0.40% to 0.42% we are very likely on a good basis for a “business as usual” “scenario” with population growth continuing at the 1960-2010 CAGR of 1.7%. This would get us to 560 ppmv by year 2100.
If population growth takes a real dive to around 0.28% on average until 2100 (as the UN projects) this CO2 rate might be a bit on the high side, even excluding and trends away from more expensive fossil fuels.
If we include these natural market trends, we come out with a 2100 concentration leveling off at 450 to 500 ppmv, as I pointed out to you earlier.
All makes good sense to me, Peter.
And it tells me that we are not going to “fry” in the future as a result of higher CO2 levels, just like the inhabitants of Manchester did not get inundated in horse manure by 1920 as was feared in 1860.
Max
PS But haven’t we pretty much exhausted this topic, so shouldn’t we move on?
Max
NASA chief Michael D. Griffin doubts man can change climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Global_warming_controversy
Quotation from May 30,2007 interview. Griffin resigned as NASA chief in January 2009, and is now in a senior position as eminent scholar and professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
PS Hansen was “upset”
Max
Max,
You say that it is ‘apparent’, that there is ‘no accelerating trend’ re CO2. But ‘acceleration’ is precisely the word that NOAA use!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annmeet2006/pdf_2006/talks%202006%202.pdf
Even in % terms, your own figures seem to bear this out: 0.4% in the 60’s, and 0.5% {sorry 0.492% I know how much of a stickler you are for accuracy :-) } in the 00’s.
Max,
Hansen wasn’t the only one to criticise Griffin, who incidentally wasn’t a climate scientist.
Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”
But to be fair to Michael Griffin he did say:
“Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.” “All I can really do is apologize to all you guys…. I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this.”
PeterM
A change of subject for you:
What is Peter’s “Goldilocks Ideal Global Temperature”?
We all know the “Goldilocks” (or “Three Bears”) story, where Goldilocks is searching for the ideal “just right” porridge temperature – not “too hot” and also not “too cold”.
So what is our “Goldilocks ideal just right” global temperature?
We start off with a problem here: the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” itself.
This is an artificial construct. If we live in a temperate zone, our ambient temperature may reach this level for a few hours during a few days or nights in one or another season.
In other words, diurnal and seasonal variations (which we will feel directly) will bounce all around this arbitrary number (which we will only encounter rarely). So it really doesn’t mean too much to us.
But let’s forget about this problem for now.
Let me suggest this answer (taken from several sources): 23°C is close to the optimum temperature for humans, 6°C is close to the coldest the planet has gotten naturally, 35°C is close to the highest natural temperature and 15°C is close to the current global temperature (so we are somewhere below the middle of the natural range today).
Climate history tells us that this temperature has moved up and down in natural cycles even before humans started emitting CO2.
5 million years ago the average temperature is believed to have been around 5°C warmer than today, or 20°C.
During the last Glacial Maximum, it is believed that the global average temperature was as much as 6°C colder than today, or 9°C.
According to IPCC, the temperature now would be around 14°C if there had been no human influence (back-calculated using IPCC estimates of CO2 impact and checks with older records). This was just as the planet was coming out of a colder period called the Little Ice Age. Is this the “Goldilocks Ideal Global Temperature” (GIGT) for our planet?
Or is it the temperature we had in 1998 (15.3°C)? Or maybe the one in 2008 (around 15°C)? How about 1988 (just below 15°C)?
You have resisted giving me your estimate of the “just right” GIGT. Maybe you don’t have an idea on this.
But, if one has no idea what the GIGT should be, then how can one worry about an increase of a degree or two?
Maybe the GIGT is actually 18°C.
In my opinion, it is very unlikely that the GIGT is at the so-called “pre-industrial” level of around 14°C or even less, for obvious reasons, so warmer should be better, right?
(I would personally put it at somewhere between 16°C and 17°C, but that is just a flat-out guess, maybe influenced by the fact that I live in a relatively cold place and hate shoveling snow.)
Maybe we should be happy and hope it continues to warm a bit before cooling off again.
What are your thoughts on this and do you have a suggested GIGT?
Max
PeterM
and back to 0.42% CAGR over the past 5 years.
Yawn!
Game over!
Max
Max, Reur 3722. (Oz climate change & tax)
If various mini-polls are anything to go by, it is all-over for the ruling parties, and Julia Gillard, but, unfortunately the uproar is all about “the tax” and politics, and nothing about climate change itself. But it is very early days.
I can’t discuss Oz politics with any skill because I have a huge dislike of most of the politicians that “serve“ us. My voting choice, has always been determined by deciding which is the least worst party, and that has always been other than the current Labour party. I think the term for the current rulers is up to about 2.5 years, but it may be fragile, because at least one independent, needed by Labour is apparently under very heavy pressure from his electorate to switch sides. (even reporting death threats and vile phone calls/Emails). The leader of the opposition coalition parties, Tony Abbot, has called for an early election but I doubt that will happen. Yet another label has been attached to Julia Gillard; not ’prime Minister’ any more, but “Prime Misleader”. Parliament debate is from the snippets shown, downright stupid.
An interesting thermometer to me is that my son has always been an ardent labour supporter, but has violently switched to the opposition since the last election, describing Gillard et al as idiots and also in other less polite terms.
You asked about Oz democratic options. Well a couple of things are that voting is compulsory, and we have preferences. Also, each party can do sweetheart deals to share preferences, ie (Labour + Greens this time). Voters should give their first preference to the party they want and then the others in descending order, commonly following the “how to vote” flyer handed out by their party ushers. I believe that there is a lot of resentment out there that so many Greens got in this time with labour. However, maybe your Queensland friend with greater political skill than I, will contradict everything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I looked at Bob Carter’s website a short while ago, and he still has not posted his discussion brief that was attached to his Email. However, he has posted at Quadrant on Line, and it covers most of it, this being part 2; with several links therein, including part 1.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science
Did you explore his website, and notice that he is an author in some 100 research papers? Funny how Bob Ward and Robyn Williams seem to think he has a poor publication record! His book, available from Amazon UK is a great read BTW.
OH, and sceptics can write books that are valueless and without expertise, but Williams, (Host of the ABC “Science Show”), recently praised the books by Naomi Oreskes and Tim Flannery in 1-hour long programmes!
PeterM
At the risk of boring everyone else here to death, I will respond a last time to your 3733 on the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.
To clear this up, I have plotted the decadal average CAGR in % since the record started, to see if I could find an acceleration in the trend.
This shows that there was an upward trend from around 1970, which reversed around 1988 with a slowdown until 1999 with another upward trend, which peaked around 2005.
The overall linear equation is: y = 0.00005x + 0.002, which equates to a 0.0005% decadal increase in the CAGR.
So you were right. There has been a slight increase (or “acceleration”) overall.
And I was right, as well. The rate of increase for the past five years has slowed down again.
But we are picking nits here.
Max
Bob_FJ
Yeah. Your politics sound similar to those in several countries, but it’s good to hear that the current ruling coalition that was pushing for a carbon tax is coming under pressure and will likely get pushed out in the next election.
I’d also be curious what Peter thinks of this.
In Switzerland the “green party” is actually “redder” than the “socialists”. The two work together on some issues but fight on others (and try to steal each others’ voters in elections). So what happened is that some “green” thinking members who do not support “socialist” agendas, bolted from the “green party” to form a “green liberal party” (where “liberal” is in the European sense of “free enterprise”). This “green thinking” but “free enterprise” supporting group has now become the main adversary for the other “green” party, whose voters they try to steal. But then, Swiss politics is a form of “alle gegen alle” or “tous contre tous” (a children’s game, where everyone tries to eliminate everyone else). There is no ruling party or formal coalition, just loose parliamentary alliances, which form over specific issues and then dissolve. The executive branch or federal council, is a committee of seven, each heading a “department” (interior, exterior, environment and transport, etc.), which are picked by the parliament along party and language lines, and usually stay in office for at least two four-year terms. Much ado about nothing, in my opinion, but it seems to work here, mostly because voters can call a referendum on any major issue with just a few signatures and (quite often) reject propositions made by the federal council. The voters usually vote more conservative than the parliament or the federal council, much to the dismay of the media and press, which are generally left-leaning. A small three-ring circus. Curiously, the German-Swiss tend to be more conservative and green than the French- or Italian-Swiss, who are more socialist but less green.
The general public opinion on the “global warming threat” has shifted from around 50-50 to fewer poll respondents who feel this is a real problem. Maybe Climategate had something to do with this, or maybe it was just the harsh winters we’ve been having recently (after the media reports were predicting five years ago that the ski resorts would have to shut down because of lack of snow).
Max
Bob_FJ
Back to Carter quickly.
Yes, I did watch his youtubes.
I have read some of his stuff as well.
He seems to be very knowledgeable and gets his points across clearly and concisely.
I’m sure he’ll be an interesting guy to work with.
Cheers and lots of luck!
Max
Europe Grapples with Stolen Carbon Credits
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116483436132722.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
Max,
I think you’ve asked me about the ‘ideal’ global temperature before. I can understand that everyone will have their own preference for the sort of climate they prefer. I can also understand that many residents of the cooler regions of the world would prefer a warmer climate and, presumably, that is why they move to places like Spain and Florida to get that. That’s fair enough, of course.
So, there are plenty of climates to choose from. The important thing is that they themselves shouldn’t be changed artificially. There’s not a lot we can do to stop them changing naturally but the scientific advise is that isn’t the case.
Max,
I think you’ve asked me about the ‘ideal’ global temperature before. I can understand that everyone will have their own preference on temperature and climate. I can also understand that many residents of the cooler regions of the world would prefer a warmer climate and, presumably, that is why they move to places like Spain and Florida. That’s fair enough, of course.
So, there are plenty of climates to choose from. The important thing is that they themselves shouldn’t be changed artificially. There’s not a lot we can do to stop them changing naturally, of course, but that isn’t the case, according to the best scientific advice.
PeterM
It looks like we agree that lots of people will have different ideas on “ideal” climate and the “ideal” global temperature.
More retirees living in northern latitudes end up “heading south” to retire, both in Europe and North America, so this might be sort of an indication.
And, of course when climate changes people really can’t tell the difference between whether this has happened “naturally” or “artificially” (as you put it), so I guess we are in general agreement on that, as well.
The “best scientific advice” I’ve seen out there tells us that climate has always changed and will continue to do so.
If it really does get 2C warmer over the next 100 years (for whatever reason), there will probably be winners and losers, although no serious and objective study has been made of this as far as I can tell. Growing seasons and crop yields in the principal grain producing areas of the world should improve (also from slightly higher CO2 levels). According to studies I’ve seen the Sahara and Sahel should become greener, allowing more crops to be grown there, but other regions may become drier and less productive.
Whatever happens, we will all have to adapt (as we have over the millennia).
And humanity will not only survive, but will thrive as a result of scientific and technological advances in many fields, including medicine (if we don’t start killing each other on a large scale as we did in the past century).
Max
Max,
Is this “climate has always changed and always will” deniers argument?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-basic.htm
or the “its only a few degrees” argument?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
or maybe the “global warming is a good thing” argument?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
PeterM
Agree with you. The record shows that climate has always changed and mankind has always survived climate changes.
Agree with second statement that human CO2 emissions will only impact our temperature by at most 1.5 degrees C above today’s level (and most likely much less).
Also agree that a moderate warming of our climate will most likely have more positive effects for humanity than negative ones.
Looks like we are in agreement, Peter!
Max
PS I do not agree with the screwy notions of your fellow Queenslander, John Cook, on these points. But then, what does he know?
Brute
Extreme winter weather linked to climate change
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-climate-winter-idUSTRE72074L20110302
Here we have the “smoking gun” theory that proves that man-made global warming causes global cooling, according to Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Even NSIDC Arctic ice specialist, Mark Serreze, has weighed in, giving the whole theory greater credence.
Yawn! It looks like these guys never give up digging, even when they are in a deep hole.
Max
Hey Max,
These global warming nuts should (tele) conference before they release their statements…………
NASA Climate Scientist: Global Warming Does Not Cause Extreme Weather Events
That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/02/nasa-climate-scientist-global-warming-does-not-cause-extreme-weather-events.html
Brute
You’re right.
The climate hysterics need to get on a conference call and get their storyline straight.
At the same time that Gavin Schmidt, the disciple of “tipping point” and “coal death train” James E. Hansen, is telling us that man-made global warming (AGW) is NOT causing climate extremes, his co-aficionado, Kevin Trenberth, is telling the world that the scientific “null hypothesis” should be that ALL climate extremes are directly caused by AGW.
Ouch!
Max
This has happened twice now. Maybe Hansen figured the calculations for these two rockets?
NASA ‘Global Warming’ satellite fails to reach orbit…
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_GLORY_SATELLITE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-04-07-48-04