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.

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

  1. Max and Brute,

    You are quite right about Australian coal. That’s why a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading scheme needs to be implemented here. And the figures you give a good reason for making a start, unilaterally, rather than waiting for the rest of the world to move first, as some of our more right wing politicians have argued for.

    I am not seeking to excuse Australian environmental misdemenours, and I’m sorry if I ever gave you that impression.

  2. Vegemite is:
    http://www.vegemite.com.au/vegemite/page?PagecRef=1

    President Obama said on TV recently that it was yuk! I suspect that he’d spread it much too thickly on a piece of bread. If you are going to try it, just a very thin smear on a piece of toast is all you should use.

  3. That’s why a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading scheme needs to be implemented here.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures Pete.

    Have you considered throwing your body onto the road in front of a coal delivery truck or possibly chaining yourself to the entrance of a coal mine?

  4. All,

    Still at it I see.

    I’ve had my first article posted at WUWT yesterday, entitled:
    ABC radio (Australia); “The Science Show” tricks of the trade.

    It largely concerns the shameful way that individuals including Bob carter have been ambushed by the ABC and has provoked some interest

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/16/abc-radio-australia-%e2%80%9cthe-science-show%e2%80%9d-tricks-of-the-trade/#comment-622740

  5. PeterM

    Each year Australia is sending $50 billion in “coal death shipments” all over the world, which (as we all know) will eventually destroy our environment, human civilization and even the planet, and you write:

    a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading scheme needs to be implemented here

    How totally silly!

    A carbon tax will accomplish nothing. Nada Zilch.

    If you want to stop the death of our planet, it will not be accomplished by a carbon tax, you must immediately outlaw the “death shipments”, shut down and disable the coal mines and imprison (or execute) the mine owners and managers.

    A carbon tax, indeed! I’m afraid you are much too timid to be able to save our planet, Peter.

    Max

  6. Bob 3879

    Well done on the article. I read it a little while ago but hadn’t realised it was you.

    I think we have a number of related problems which your piece highlights;

    * The tv media tends to be left wing.
    * The participants are like minded and have extremely closed minds
    * They believe in ‘noble cause’
    * They are adept at spending other peoples money and have no idea of the real world consequences of their often well meant actions.

    We saw all that in action on the BBc’s Question time here last night when Caroline Lucas -the leader of the Green party and their only MP-was on.

    She seems reasonable until you listen to what she actually says, which in effect would catapult us back to the 19th Century. She is surrounded by unquestioning acolytes who all believe that they are right.

    Sounds like you Aussies have the same toxic formula and the only solution is to continue to shine the bright light of common sense reason and science full into their faces.

    Its a shame really, as there are many aspects of green philosophy I am happy to buy into, but the macro policies then put me off.

    tonyb

  7. Brute,

    You ask “Have you considered throwing your body onto the road in front of a coal delivery truck……?”

    Well now you come to mention it. Actually I haven’t! I would prefer to do my bit through the established system.

    However, if ever it did come to that point, I would say, on balance, after due consideration of all the arguments, and after the fullest and frankest consultations with all parties concerned, that we’d find throwing the bodies of people like you and Max slightly more preferable than induging in any self harm :-)

  8. Peter 3882

    :)

    tonyb

  9. Well now you come to mention it. Actually I haven’t! I would prefer to do my bit through the established system.

    Well Peter, I’d say that your commitment to the global warming “cause” is somewhat lacking. If you are unwilling to commit the environmentalist equivalent of Seppuku, then I’m beginning to question your dedication.

    Your Global Warmist Messiah, Al Gore, wrote (from the confines of his personal Gulf Stream jetliner) that we “all” must sacrifice in order to save the planet from certain doom……whatever the cost.

    Half measures won’t do Peter…….be a swell guy and remove your carbon footprint from the system……….for the good of the planet.

  10. TonyB Reur 3881,
    Thanks for your comments. I have a bunch of other articles in draft, but will spread them out over time.

    As you touched on, it is strange how emotions, religiosity, and politics interfere with rational debate. For instance, I understand that the Japanese nuke disaster was mainly a consequence of a huge tsunami that wrecked the cooling system, and back-up power supply. It seems the original design of over 40 years ago simply did not consider such a possibility, and was thus designed to fail, not to mention that they were arguably past their use-by-date. And yet, huge demo’s have been reported in Germany to ban and retire their plants. And, their great leader Angela, is sympathising, what with approaching elections. Now I don’t think that a big tsunami is likely in Germany, and France does not seem to be bothered. If there is any country that should be scared of Nukes, it is The Ukraine. Yet, even after Chernobyl, ~50% of their power comes from Nukes, and I heard yesterday, that there is no sign of them changing their plans for a substantial increase in nuke plants.

    What a strange world we live in!
    Another emotional thing is the way Libyan fighters waste a lot of ammunition by firing off into the air. Can’t they figure out that they might need the stuff later, and that it has to come down somewhere? (maybe even onto the Benghazi munitions store that unexplainably blew up recently)

  11. http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmwst10021020100211045702.jpg

  12. The reality of wind turbines in California – video

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-wind-turbines-in-california-video/#more-36283

    A local municipality in my area recently erected a windmill which I drive past twice daily. After noticing the eyesore it occurred to me that most of the time, the windmill was idle. I decided to log the windmill’s activity and discovered that 29 of 30 days, (morning and afternoon) the windmill has been idle.

    You’ll notice that wind farms are always referred to in “capacity” as opposed to kilowatts produced……for good reason. The dirty little secret of the windmill salesman is that the majority of the time they are not producing electricity or if they are, nowhere near capacity.

    Return on Investment is key to any business endeavor………rated capacity and actual kilowatt production of these monstrosities are two very different things.

    I’ve never been able to find credible data of kilowatts produced………I’d wager that if it was publicized, the interest/investment in “wind power” would dry up. Government subsidy of these devices is another poison pill……………governments spend money recklessly; hence, wasting money funding this nonsense goes unnoticed.

    Unfortunately, the data provided is held closely to the vest of the interests that sell these money pits. They have a vested in duping investors.

    A fool and his money are soon parted……………

  13. Another Global Warming Icon Bites The Dust

    Snow cap building on Mount Kilimanjaro

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/another-global-warming-icon-bites-the-dust/

  14. Why Is NASA Hiding James Hansen’s Ethics Records?

    The climate change fanatic has plenty of outside income. Did he obtain the proper waivers from NASA as he must according to the law?

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-is-nasa-hiding-james-hansens-ethics-records/?singlepage=true

  15. Brute

    It’s a shame that NASA, once looked up to by the world for its space exploration successes, is now tainted by the corrupt “science” it is feeding to the public in order to support the AGW hysteria.

    The organization that once landed men on the moon is now infiltrated by a bunch of taxpayer-funded AGW activists masquerading as serious scientists. Hansen is just the tip of the iceberg.

    As a result, one has to be skeptical of anything it publishes on climate science.

    A pity.

    Max

  16. Brute 3887

    Wind turbines are one of Tony N’s (and mine)Bete Noires) He has a thread about them on this site as you know.

    They are a terrible eye sore and hopelessly inefficient but their technology is quite mature, unlike virtually every other form of renewable. Consequently when it comes to Governments- like the UK’s- wanting to cut carbon they know what they will be getting with wind.

    Unfortunately, more sensible technologies such as Wave power are around 20 years behind the current state of technology of wind.

    Wind turbine blades not moving due to there being no wind are a well known problem in the UK where three consecutive cold winters in a row have shone a light on to their performance.

    Unfortunately much of our coldest weather in winter coincides with a high pressure system which usually means the air is not only very cold but also very still.

    There are a lot of snouts in the trough with wind power so they will continue to be specified and our scary energy crisis moves ever closer as a result.

    tonyb

  17. TonyB and Brute

    TonyN has run a long thread here on wind turbines (I think it was one of his early ones).

    A major problem with wind power is that the wind does not always blow when power is needed. And some times it blows too hard and the turbines cannot work, either.

    Proponents of wind power talk about “capacity factors” of 30% to 35%, and use this figure to estimate the number of kWh produced per kW installed (8,760 hours/year = 100% CF).

    There are two basic problems with this:

    Actual on line times that have been experienced are often much lower (in some cases 10% to 20%) – and of course, the supplier cannot “guarantee” how much wind there will be.

    If wind represents only a very small percentage of the total power in the grid, this low on-line factor is not so critical. If, however, it becomes a significant percentage of the total, then stand-by facilities are needed to cover power demand when the wind turbines are idle. This requires added capital investment (usually for natural gas fired standby plants).

    Wind turbines could make sense on a small scale for isolated locations away from the grid where there is a lot of wind and where a diesel generator covers the idle periods.

    As a major source of power into the grid the concept only flies economically by government edict and/or when there are significant taxpayer funded subsidies to promote wind turbines.

    An example of government silliness.

    Electrical high tension towers erected in the 1960s in the Jura mountains here were long seen as an eyesore, and environmental groups kept pushing for their removal. They were finally replaced with buried cables at some expense. Now the exact same locations are being “polluted” with wind turbines!

    As they say in the Jura: “il ne faut pas chercher à comprendre” (there’s no point trying to understand).

    Max

  18. PeterM

    [This a the continuation of our exchange on the Paul Nurse thread.]

    You disappoint me (196). I thought you would have figured it out, being a physicist – but here goes (I’ll do this in three parts, starting with the postulation of Hansen et al. and its recent falsification by the observed facts.

    It the paper Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications, Hansen, Schmidt, Willis et al. argue:
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

    Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.

    And

    The modeled heat gain of ~0.6 W/m2 per year for the upper 750 m of the ocean differs from the decadal mean planetary energy imbalance of ~0.75 W/m2 primarily because of heat storage at greater depths in the ocean.

    On average for the five simulations, 85% of the ocean heat storage occurred above 750 m, with the range from 78 to 91%. The mean heat gain below 750 m was ~0.11 W/m2.

    OK. So, according to the GISS models, more energy is being absorbed by the Earth than is being emitted into space, and the imbalance is going into the ocean, primarily the upper ocean.

    But wait!

    A study by Craig Loehle shows us that the upper ocean has been cooling, instead of warming since ARGO measurements replaced to old inaccurate expendable XBT devices in 2003:
    http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

    (Data prior to the ARGO measurements are so dicey and sketchy, and the XBT’s introduced a “warming bias”, according to team leader, Willis, that these should be taken with a grain of salt.)

    Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 10^22 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

    Josh Willis (co-author of the earlier Hansen paper, acknowledged the cooling and called it a “speed bump”.

    So much for the hypothesis of a warming upper ocean as the heat sink. A beautiful hypothesis falsified by the facts on the ground – see more detail plus comments by Roger Pielke, Sr. here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

    In part 2, I’ll get more deeply into the earlier Hansen et al. paper.

    Max

  19. PeterM

    OK. I have pointed out how the postulation of energy being “hidden” in the upper ocean according to the Hansen et al. paper has been falsified by the AGRO record of upper ocean heat content.

    But how did Hansen et al. come up with the energy imbalance estimate in the first place?

    Summarizing Hansen’s determination of the 0.85 W/m^2 “imbalance” figure: Total forcing is estimated by GISS model simulations to be 1.8 W/m^2 (1880-2003), including 1.6 W/m^2 for all anthropogenic forcing and 0.2 W/m^2 for natural factors (direct solar irradiance only). Observed warming was 0.6-0.7 degC. Assumed climate response is 2/3degC per W/m^2 (equivalent to an assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3 degC), therefore 0.65 degC warming is response to ~1W/m^2. But since theoretical forcing was 1.8 W/m^2, this leaves 0.8 W/m^2 still hidden “in the pipeline”.

    Checking Hansen’s logic, it is “circular”. He starts out with an assumed CO2 climate sensitivity, then calculates how much warming we should have seen 1880-2003, using his model-based estimates. This calculates out at 1.2 degC. He then ascertains that the actual observed warming was only 0.65 degC. From this he does not conclude that his assumed climate sensitivity is exaggerated, but deduces that the difference of 0.55 degC is still hidden somewhere “in the pipeline”. Using his 2/3 degC per W/m^2, he calculates a net “hidden” forcing = 0.82 W/m^2, which he then rounds up to 0.85 W/m^2.[Follow the pea as it moves quickly under the walnut shells.]

    Checking Hansen’s arithmetic: The theoretical GH forcing from 1880-2003 is 5.35 * ln(378/285) = 1.51 W/m^2 for CO2 and all other forcings are estimated to cancel each other out (not 1.8). Using Hansen’s figure of 2/3degC per W/m^2 puts theoretical warming at 1.0 degC. Observed warming was 0.65 degC leaving 0.35 degC hidden “in the pipeline”. This equates to a “energy imbalance” of 0.35/.6667 = 0.53 W/m^2 (not 0.85), all things being equal. [Just a small error in the assumption makes a significant error in the estimated energy imbalance.]

    But all things are not equal. Several solar studies show that 0.35 degC warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity over the 20th century (highest in several thousand years), although the exact mechanisms for this empirically observed warming have not yet been determined. Let us assume that this covers the same 1880-2003 period cited by Hansen. Much of this occurred during the early 20th century warming period from around 1910 to around 1944, which cannot be explained by AGW alone yet accounts for half of the total warming. This leaves 0.3 degC observed non-solar warming (1880-2003). If we assume that one third of the theoretical GH warming over this long period is still hidden “in the pipeline”. we have 0.3 + 0.15 = 0.45 degC equilibrium GH warming 1880-2003 with an “imbalance hidden in the pipeline” of 0.15/.66667 = 0.22 W/m^2 (instead of 0.85). [This, along with the next paragraph, is Hansen’s biggest error.]

    In addition to the solar influence, there are many other observed natural factors that have caused warming. Notable among these are swings in the ENSO, which were partially responsible for many high temperatures in the 1990s, including most notably the all-time record high in 1998. The current “lack of warming” after 2000 is being attributed to these natural factors (called “natural variability” by Met Office), despite the fact that all models predicted record warming as a result of record increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. [This, along with the previous paragraph, is Hansen’s biggest error.]

    So, Peter, not only has Hansen’s hypothesis been falsified by the observed ARGO upper ocean temperatures (part 1), but its entire premise is based on circular logic, questionable assumptions and flawed arithmetic (part 2).

    In part 3 we’ll look at how Hansen thought his hypothesis would work out and why even that is absurd.

    Max

  20. PeterM

    I have shown you that the Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” hypothesis was based on circular logic, flawed arithmetic and questionable assumptions (part 2) and how it has been falsified by observed upper ocean temperatures since the ARGO record started in 2003 (part 1).

    Now let’s go quickly into the hypothesis as postulated.

    Energy is being “hidden” in the upper ocean, rather than showing up as atmospheric warming.

    Over the period 1880-2003 the GISS models estimate that this was the equivalent of “unseen” atmospheric warming of 0.55 degreesC (the models predicted 1.2C, but only 0.65C were actually observed) with the “missing energy” primarily “hidden” in the upper ocean.

    The weird (and rather arrogant) conclusion of Hansen et al. is NOT “Oops! My model assumptions must have been wrong,” but rather: the models had to be right, so the “missing” rest of the energy must be “hiding” somewhere else.

    How much theoretical warming would this “missing” energy cause in the upper ocean if Hansen’s hypothesis were true?

    The atmosphere has a mass of 5,140,000 Gt, while the mass of the upper 700m of the ocean is 247,000,000 Gt. In addition, the specific heat of seawater is around 4 times the specific heat of our atmosphere.

    So the net warming of the upper ocean from this “hidden” energy would be:

    0.55 * 5,140,000 / (4 * 247,000,000) = 0.003 degreesC

    The deep ocean has a mass of 1,130,000,000 Gt, so the temperature rise of the deep ocean from this “hidden” energy would be 0.0006 degreesC.

    And this is supposed to “come out of hiding” and cause more atmospheric warming?

    Gimme a break, Peter.

    The supposition is absurd, no matter how you look at it.

    Max

  21. Max,

    OK lets start from the beginning. The Earth receives and transmits about 240 Watts per square metre. If we are looking for an energy imbalance of around 1W per sq metre how much accuracy would be required in each measurement?

    Is this level of accuracy realistic?

    You accuse Hansen of circular logic in his approach to tackling the problem. How would you do it instead?

  22. This is an interesting article which shows why debating particular scientific aspects of climate science is largely futile.

    http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/01/why_climate_science_divides_us.shtml

    I’m not presenting this link in the sense that I endorse everything the authors say. In fact, if you read it through you’ll probably spot a few things lines where they seem to
    be suffering from the same deficiencies as they themsleves describe. I suspect that, at heart, they would like to agree with you more than they would with me but it is a genuine attempt to make some sense of it all and they do get one fundamental right when they say:

    “Skepticism about, and outright rejection of, climate science has long been motivated by skepticism or rejection of particular climate policies. This is not to say that there are no skeptics motivated purely by the quest for capital-T truth. Nor is it to say that most skeptics are paid by the fossil fuel industry, which many liberals wrongly believe. But if you pay attention to climate skeptics what you will often find underneath the talk of sunspots, water vapor, and the myriad uncertainties is a visceral resistance to proposals that would expand state regulatory power, slow economic growth, or mandate lifestyle changes. Not surprisingly, this resistance is stronger in the U.S., with our anti-establishment laissez-faire populism, than it is in many other countries.”

  23. PeterM

    You accuse Hansen of circular logic in his approach to tackling the problem. How would you do it instead?

    Peter, it appears you agree with me that Hansen’s logic was circular. That’s good for a start.

    Now to how I “would do it”:

    I would accept that the warming we have actually seen is what it is. If my model showed a higher theoretical warming, I would accept that my model was wrong and stick with the observed value.

    Inasmuch I have no comprehensive accurate data regarding the average temperature of the upper ocean (the ARGO measurements had just started then), I would leave that out of the equation for now.

    I would check whether or not there were cycles in the temperature record, which could not be explained by the increased level of human GHGs.

    I would try to see if there were any cyclical factors of ocean circulation affecting our climate, such as PDO or ENSO, which might have explained these cycles in temperature.

    Then I would check the literature regarding the impact of higher solar activity on our planet’s climate, in particular for warming periods prior to major human CO2 emissions.

    Once I had done all that, I would see how much of the warming can still only be explained by increased human GHG levels.

    This would be my estimate of the human contribution, based on the observed facts around me, rather than simply starting with a model-derived estimate and making the facts “fit” that figure, as Hansen did.

    “How would you do it”, Peter?

    Max

  24. PeterM

    Yeah. I’ve read some of the Nordhaus/Shellenberger stuff (although I have not read their book about the death of environmentalism).

    Judith Curry ran a blog on a recent essay by N+S, which got some interesting comments:
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/01/long-death-of-environmentalism/

    Max

  25. So you’re saying that there is no time lag at all between a change in climate forcing , from whatever source, and a subsequent change in temperature?

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


7 + = nine

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha