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.
I’ve read that “many” Greeks refuse or somehow find loopholes to avoid paying taxes.
Has anyone given any thought as to why that would be?
Possibly they have become disgusted with a government that robs them of their wealth only to “redistribute” it to indolent lay abouts that refuse to work and provide for themselves?
I had a guy that I caught stealing from me (my company). I put a stop to it.
Maybe the average, hard working Greek citizen is simply tired of having his property stolen………..
Brute,
Every group can accuse other groups of theft. Proudhon famously said “Property is theft”. I would suggest that most sensible people, these days, would reserve the term for law breakers. So, while no-one likes paying tax, if it’s decided by governments who derive their legitimacy from democratic elections that certain tax rates apply its for everyone to comply with the rules.
The Germans are good at rules and compliance. The Greeks less so, it would seem. I don’t have that much experience of the country, but we do read even doctors there can ask for their fees in cash. If that’s true its they who are the thieves breaking the law, and , yes, Max is right. That issue does need to be tackled.
Have you framed that yet, Max? :-)
James P
I fell off my chair.
Max
That’s great Pete……..are you now idolizing Anarchists? (Worse still he was French).
Tell ya what Pete……..you “donate” your home to the government if that’s what you believe. Maybe they’ll gather up a half dozen bums to “share” your home. You guys can “collectively” be professional malcontents.
We’ll see how fast you become a property rights advocate.
Brute
Looks like your Supreme Court has concluded that the jury is still out on CO2 and climate change:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/24/the-supremes-recommend-the-supreme-skeptic/
Makes sense to me.
Max
Brute,
The French and American revolutions, (didn’t they help you lot out in that?) were almost contemporaneous, so you do share a similar sort of republican history which I’m quite envious of. I’d be much happier celebrating something like the fall of the Bastille that Liz’s birthday. We do get a holiday for that in Australia still. And didn’t the French make that nice statue you have in NY bay?
So what the big problem with the French for you guys?
BTW Proudhon did say he was an Anarchist, but if you actually look at what he was arguing for, that doesn’t quite mean what I think most people would think it meant.
PeterM and Brute
We don’t have a Frenchman on this blog to defend himself, but as a “neutral Swiss” let me comment.
The American Revolutionary War and the later French Revolution had similar origins: both were revolts against oppressive, autocratic monarchies.
Both occurred during the “age of reason”, but the American Revolution was able to withstand efforts of being taken over by radical extremists, which the French Revolution was unable to do. As a result, there was no “reign of terror” in the early American confederation of states. Unlike France, which has always been ruled centrally (and is to this day), the individual American states (originally separate colonies) were much more powerful than the federal government. The US Constitution was a masterpiece (still is, after all these years) – the French Revolution developed no equivalent document. There was no group of leaders in France of the same caliber as the US “founding fathers”, such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison and the others. There was also no “Bonaparte” in America, who later crowned himself emperor “Napoleon” (Washington declined to become a “king” – let alone “emperor”).
The fact that pre-Revolutionary France helped the nascent USA in its struggle against Britain was simply an extension of a centuries-old French-British conflict (my enemy’s enemy = my friend).
So there were many differences (including luck and distance from the seat of the monarchy) that made the US revolution turn out basically differently than the one in France.
Brute may have different opinions on this, but those are my brief thoughts, having read a bit about both revolutions.
Max
Max,
I’m impressed by your knowledge of US history.
The American revolution was a walk in the park in comparison to the sadistic orgy of blood that was the French revolution……….mob rule……..
Yes, at the time there was consideration of making Washington king………wisely, he declined.
They were great men of character……..
Must be a fluke or a “regional anomaly”…….(chuckle)……..
Just curious Pete…….does global warming causes both weaker AND stronger hurricanes?
Does global warming cause more frequent AND less frequent hurricane occurances?
REPORT: Global hurricane activity at historical lows…
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
‘Asia pollution’ blamed for halt in warming…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704
We’ve come full circle……
A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/
Mark Lynas: ‘You mustn’t believe the lies of the Green zealots. And I should know – I was one’ — ‘What I believed about env. issues had little, if any, basis in science’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010981/You-mustnt-believe-lies-Green-zealots-And-I-know–I-one.html
Brace Brace Brace DAGW is about to crash !!!!!! A mini ice age is coming for 50 years. We now know this as the Metro (tacky give away paper many commuters into London read each morning) is telling us we are in for 50 years of server winters worse that the last 3.
It doesn’t matter what these morons are told, we either are going to fry, or freeze. Can they not see our climate will be roughly the same but with some extra cold bits and possibly fewer extra warm bits, just as all my life it has been the same with some extra warm bits and fewer really cold bits during the 90’s.
Brute, it would be nice to have PeterM’s take on all this but I guess it was always going to be difficult for those of his ilk once some of the real scientists (many of whom had been holding back out of some sort of false sense of duty perhaps) had to bow to what has been obvious to most for many years.
The real battle now is with our useless politicians, who in the main are only interested in themselves and will only backtrack, no matter how obvious if it causes no loss of face, a big problem for the likes of the Lib Dims and especially for our dopey PM David Cameron who has made a big deal out of climate change.
Also of note is a couple who are suing a wind turbine operator over noise as they have had to move out of their house. Interesting times.
There´s something i´ve been wondering about. It´s not about co2, although the greenhouse effect would be a factor in the end result. My question is simply this; how much HEAT is put into the atmosphere every day by human technology? All the electric circuits have resistance, and so get HOT. Most IC engines are barely 30% efficient, and all the wasted energy is lost as HEAT to the atmosphere ( or the sea in the case of some boat engines…) through the radiators and exhaust gas. How much oil do we burn every day? If something like 70% of that energy goes to nothing more than wasted HEAT because of inefficient engine design, how much HEAT does that equate to, HEAT WHICH GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE ATMOSPHERE EVERY DAY AS A RESULT OF HUMAN TECHNOLOGY ??
All our machines get HOT. we have LOTS of machines, LOTS of horrifically inefficient ENGINES… seems to me that all equates to LOTS OF HEAT resulting from human activity… of course this wouldn´t be a problem if it was all radiated into space, but if there is an atmospheric greenhouse effect then it seems to me that we are almost certainly warming the atmosphere, directly, with ALL our inefficient technology.
Maybe it´s insignificant compared to the amount of energy received from the sun, but i would be interested in the numbers if anyone has them… How much oil/petrol/diesel/coal/uranium/plutonium is burned every day and how much HEAT ENERGY does this release into the atmosphere? How much electricity is consumed every day and how much HEAT is produced by all the resistance in all the electronic circuitry using it? Even electricity from solar and wind farms is going to end up heating resistors, and so heating the atmosphere eventually…
T.o.D.,
I suggest that you study heat transfer/thermodynamics and then consider the scale of the earth, the sun and the universe.
The heat produced by cars/factories/television sets………or the heat produced in the history cars/factories/television sets wouldn’t even register in comparison to the immensity.
As has been stated above, “scientists” now admit (begrudgingly) that human activity (human generated heat/CO2) are dwarfed in comparison to the natural processes (although they will still demand buckets full of taxpayer monies to “study” the prospects).
@ Brute.
cheers for the response… i do have a basic understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer… and as i said in my question, i´m aware that the heat generated by human activity is probably insignificant compared to solar input and geological output… but i would still like to know the approximate numbers, if anyone has them… math was never my favorite pastime but numbers are nice to think about sometimes… it would be good to have some idea of the actual ratio of man made heat to solar/geo heat effecting the atmosphere on a daily basis, even if it is only a best guess… insignificant maybe, but interesting nonetheless… so if anyone can provide some estimates or links to sites that can….
T.o.D Firstly I echo Brute’s comment on the scale of human active as compared to the earths energy budget. I would just add that we could burn all the oil and coal in one year and it would still make very little difference to the worlds energy budget.
As an engineer I would just like to set the record straight on your view of horribly inefficient engines. Some modern Diesel engines run at 60% efficiency. Thats not horrible. Modern heavy duty truck engines as well as being mandated as almost zero emissions (ignoring CO2 that along with H2O is the byproduct of combustion) are around 50% efficient. More efficiency could easily be obtained if our regulators used a modicum of intelligence when mandating harmful emission levels, rather than the arbitrary cuts they make every three years that have departed from any rational relationship to public health.
In terms of hydrocarbon combusted it is often more efficient in real terms to power your trains by diesels than electricity off the grid, especially if it comes from gas and coal. Electrification was always implemented when designed to either provide more power and speed or shift harmful emissions from cities to out of town power stations. It was never for reasons of efficiency which is a recent invention of the green movement and Politicians.
@peter geany
even if you´re right in saying that burning ALL the coal and oil in a year wouldn´t make a difference to the worlds temperature, i have to point out that it almost certainly would make the place stink for a while, at least… but anyway…
turbo diesels are my engine of choice, the only ones with even a half decent efficiency… but to my mind 60% isn´t all that great… not really… and it makes me laugh when people claim that electric cars have zero emissions… what about the power station making the electricity? eh? but you already know this so maybe i´ll just shut up now… would still like to know those totals though… just out of interest you know… guess i´ll have to dig out the numbers from somewhere myself…
Brute, T.o.D. and Peter Geany
An interesting thing about the Kaufmann et al. study (beside the fact that it is based on very sketchy data and a lot of even dicier assumptions) is that it really does not give aerosols (Chinese or otherwise) that much weighting regarding the recent “lack of warming” (i.e. observed slight cooling).
As I read it, aerosols are given a radiative forcing of -0.06 W/m^2 while changes in solar activity are given -0.18 W/m^2, or 3x the radiative forcing of the aerosols.
So the Chinese may not be able to keep us from frying by polluting the air their citizens have to breathe – at least not without the help of the sun.
Max
T.o.D I think you will find the actual figures rather elussive to find, with a wide variation. I’m not prepared to quote any as a result. I don’t think there has been a serious attempt to update the numbers as it is debateable how useful they would be given they are so vast.
peter geany
I have some recent estimates from the World Energy Council on the remaining “proven reserves” of coal, oil and natural gas as well as the “inferred possible total resources in place” for each.
Based on these figures I have estimated that burning all the “inferred possible total resources in place” would increase atmospheric CO2 levels to a bit more than 1,000 ppmv (from today’s 390 ppmv).
On this basis and using the observed warming from 1850 to today, the increase in CO2 from 1850 to today, together with the IPCC assumptions a) that the CO2/temperature relation is logarithmic, b) that all other anthropogenic forcing components beside CO2 (aerosols, other GHGs, land use changes, other surface albedo changes, etc.) cancel one another out, and c) that natural forcing (solar) was only 7% of the total, one arrives at a warming of 2C from today until all fossil fuels are consumed.
I can show you this calculation, if you are interested.
I have not calculated the total net energy that is involved with a 2C average global temperature rise, but this could be estimated.
The amount of energy released from burning all the fossil fuels could also be estimated.
I’ll see if I can come up with something in the next day or so.
Max
T.o.D.
“Maybe it´s insignificant compared to the amount of energy received from the sun”
I think it is. I don’t have all the figures, but on a clear day at middle latitudes you can reckon on at least 1kW/sq.m from the sun, or a Gigawatt per sq.km, or 240TW (240 x 10^12 watts) falling on the UK on a sunny day. Say there are a million vehicles on UK roads, on average, at any one time, and say they generate roughly 30kW each – that equates to 30GW, or 30 x 10^9 watts, which is 1/8000 of the sun’s input. Power stations produce up to 60GW and non-electric heating maybe the same, but even with a few aeroplanes and diesel trains thrown in, we’re unlikely to get anywhere near 0.1% of what the sun can do.
This is why the old-fashioned ‘black radiator in a glass box’ type solar panels were quite effective, even though I have seen recommendations for solar PV panels to drive auxiliary heaters in water tanks, which must be the most inefficient and expensive way of pre-heating water yet devised! (without a feed-in subsidy, that is).
Peter G
I thought 50% was about the maximum efficiency for conventional engines? Not sure how that translates to g/Kwh for a given fuel, but I’m sure you’ll put me right!
Kwh = kWh (!)