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.
Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails
Hi Brute
Howls of outrage to nail the hacker (leaker)!
Where were these howls when Wikileaks released their stolen email data?
Max
Max
It’s the Grauniad. They can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast…
(pace Lewis Carroll)
Something more to worry about:
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/11/28/iran-on-the-brink-of-acquiring-wind-farm-technology-warn-experts/
geoffchambers, thats a relief, we won’t have to bomb and invade them now.
Iran with wind farms?
As I recall from visiting there many years ago, there are a lot of desolate desert areas where the wind howls constantly, blowing a lot of sand along with it.
Hope their windmills are resistant to sandblast.
Max
Maybe they’ll use the windmills to pump the oil out of the ground?
TonyN
This long thread started out with an article by David Whitehouse.
Here is a new one by the same author in the Huffington Post on science journalism, which is well worth reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-david-whitehouse/science-a-new-mission-to-explain_b_1122560.html
Max
Looks like we don’t need all those bureaucrats meeting at Durban.
Myshelterfoundation.com has found the solution to the global warming threat.
PET bottle slum lighting!
http://www.eco.viaexpo.com/en/news/branch-news/solar-bottle-lights-transforming-plastic-bottle-waste-to-light-bulbs
Brute, you might want to try it out in your Hummer’s garage…
Max
Max, #4458:
I think that Whitehouse is taking a very cool and astute look at a very important problem, and he is obviously very well qualified to do so, both as a scientist and a journalist of considerable experience. See this thread, where there related issues are already being discussed.
Max,
I’m cutting holes in my roof as we speak and installing plastic bottles……..I haven’t discussed this with Mrs Brute yet……I’m certain she will be pleased.
On a happier note, it seems that these people have lost faith in their bank. Unfortunately, these type stories will become rather routine in the coming months.
PANIC: BANK RUN IN LATVIA…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45637136
Brute
Re #4461 we’ve already had to bail out one big bank here (UBS) and a couple of small ones are shaky.
But there’s been this very successful meeting in Durban and they decided there that “carbon certificates” and global “carbon taxes” will be used to finance the $100+ billion “green development fund” for compensating the governments of underdeveloped nations for past carbon footprint sins of the developed nations (like Switzerland and the USA).
The good news for Switzerland is that most of the dictators of these underdeveloped nations have their private accounts in Swiss banks and most of this money will find its way into these accounts, thus helping us to solve the bank liquidity crisis here through stronger capitalization.
It’s what’s known as “synergy”.
Although Mrs. Max still doesn’t know about it, I’ve put all our remaining francs into “carbon futures”, in anticipation of the inevitable fall-out effect.
Smart move, huh?
Max
News flash
Canada, who represents less than 2% of global CO2 emissions today, has opted out of the Kyoto agreement.
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Canada+opts+Kyoto+pact+favour+voluntary+cuts/5817158/story.html
Japan and Russia, which together represent a more meaningful 8%, have also indicated that they will not renew their commitment.
China, which represents a fast-growing 21% today, never was part of the agreement, nor were Brazil and India, which represent 4% and 5% respectively and are also growing rapidly.
The USA, with 17%, which is growing slowly, was also never part of the deal.
Most of the other developing nations plus the largely industrially underdeveloped rest of the world never were part of the agreement, either. These represent 10% and 19% of the total emission today.
That leaves the EU plus other European countries and Australia plus New Zealand, who represent 13% and 1%, respectively, who are still in, for a total of 14%.
The Cancun session last year ended with a loose commitment to “keep global warming below 2°C by 2100”.
This looks like a “slam dunk”, if one looks at the past warming since 1850 of 0.7°C (of which only a part in due to AGW) and the past increase from ~290 to 390 ppmv CO2 over the same time period.
Using these data, and the IPCC model “scenario and storyline” B1, A1T, B2 or A1B, of CO2 increase to 584 to 706 ppmv by 2100 based on moderate economic growth, population growth leveling off at end of century (A1, B1) or continuously increasing global population (B2), respectively at between 9 and 10 billion and no “climate initiatives”, we arrive at between 0.9°C and 1.3°C warming to 2100.
Even the IPCC worst-case “scenarios and storylines” A2 and A1F1, with CO2 increasing at close to twice the current exponential rate to 790 or 860 ppmv, respectively, would only get us to a warming of between 1.6°C and 1.7°C.
IPCC has higher warming projections for these “scenarios and storylines”, of course (1.8°C to 4.0°C), but, the again, IPCC has based its projections NOT on the past actual observations, but on doubtful model-derived 2xCO2 climate sensitivity estimates.
In summary:
– It looks like we will be unable to cause 2°C or more warming from human CO2 emissions, no matter how hard we try (i.e. the “Cancun commitment” is a slam dunk).
– It looks like the likely temperature increase from human CO2 by 2100 will lie in the range of 0.9°C to 1.3°C, all other things being equal
– The past decade has shown us clearly that “all other things are NOT equal” (slight cooling due to natural factors despite CO2 levels reaching record heights).
– Even the worst case scenarios of IPCC would only get us to 1.6°C to 1.7°C by 2100.
– If the nations that are still signed up to Kyoto (14% of total CO2 emissions) were to shut down their carbon-based economies entirely, they would only theoretically be able to avert around 0.1°C to 0.2°C warming by 2100.
So much for man’s inability (in real life) to control our plane’s climate and the delusional attempts to do so at Cancun and Durban.
Max
Suckers such as Peter Martin believed in this nonsense………How much money did you lose in the carbon exchange Pete?
Hurricane predictors admit they can’t predict hurricanes
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/story.html?id=5847032
Monday, December 12, 2011
By Tom Spears
Two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, revered like rock stars in Deep South hurricane country, are quitting the practice because it doesn’t work.
William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back shows their past 20 years of forecasts had no value.
The two scientists from Colorado State University will still discuss different probabilities as hurricane seasons approach — a much more cautious approach. But the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do next.
Gray, recently joined by Klotzbach, has been known for decades for an annual forecast of how many hurricanes can be expected each official hurricane season (which runs from June to November.)
Southerners hang on his words, as even a mid-sized hurricane can cause billions in damage.
Last week, the pair dropped this announcement out of a clear, blue sky:
“We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year … Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill.”
India scuttles Durban deal
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/13/india-proudly-sinks-the-durban-climate-c
Max
Brute & Max,
Hi guys,
It’s about 3 weeks old now, (and in a way, that’s what makes it more interesting), but I think you might be entertained by this article by Joanne Nova about our great Oz self-sacrifice in order to save the world, with apparently the highest so-called carbon tax, amongst other things.
Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/australia-picks-last-possible-moment-to-leap-onto-burning-ship/#more-19080
I see that our Canadian cousins do not have the same intestinal fortitude….. SHAME! But then, they have also abandoned the English language, and play that rather silly “football game” based on the American model
I think that everyone here thinks the tax is $23/tonne, not as Jo typed; $15. Oh, and BTW the Oz$ has been uncomfortably above par to the US$, apart from in the last couple of days.
Bob_FJ
Nice to hear from you again (#4466).
I am so relieved that you and your countrymen – including our Brisbane buddy, PeterM – are making this noble sacrifice to save the world.
Let’s accept your government’s (rather convoluted) notion that a carbon tax will result in lower CO2 emissions. If your supreme sacrifice results in a 50% reduction in your CO2 emissions (1.2% of global total), I have figured that this will reduce global warming by 2100 as follows:
Let’s accept the IPCC estimate that without “climate initiatives” we will reach around 580 ppmv CO2 by 2100. This is based on “business as usual”, with most future growth in China, India, etc.
And let’s figure the impact of your remarkable sacrifice to freeze your CO2 at 50% of today’s value. This amounts to a total net reduction of 20 GtCO2 over the next 90 years.
Half of the CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere, so your noble initiative will result in a net reduction of 2.6, let’s say 3 ppmv CO2 (i.e. from 580 to 577 ppmv).
Using IPCC’s estimate for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, your sacrifice will cut the global warming by 2100 from 1.83°C to 1.81°C – or a net reduction of warming of 0.02°C.
Let me thank you [as well as Peter], in the name of my yet unborn great-grandchildren for your noble sacrifice, Bob. It is a true life saver.
Cheers!
Max
Good for the Aussies! Well played! You guys mind your kilowatts and carbon footprints down there! We Americans are behind you to the man!
(If you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna throw another log on the fire, turn up the thermostat on the oil burner a few degrees then take the monstrous V-8 powered, carbon spewing Brutemobile® down the road to buy a greasy burger and some ice cream………………)
Keep fighting the good fight Bob!
You guys keep “saving the planet” down there Bob………..we’re with ya!
Congress to Approve Keystone Oil Pipeline Provision
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/source-congress-approve-keystone-pipeline-provision-budget-deal_613448.html
Rejoice: Incandescent Light Bulb Ban Suspended By Congress
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2011/12/16/rejoice_incandescent_light_bulb_ban_suspended
Hi Max & Brute, Re 4467/8/9.
Firstly, let me say that I’m proud that me, a Brit, has long adopted the Oz nation that has recently led the world with the intention to reduce global warming by a whopping 0.02 degrees C, by 2100. (Re Max’s 4467). My breast bursts with pride, but then Oz is well known locally for “punching above its weight”! Well, anyway, according to a popular TV beer advert at least!
Brute, thanks for your support, and I assume that you agree that American & Canadian “Football” games are not very good? (BTW, “not very good” is an English expression of understatement). The silly energy expended therein adds to your wasted carbon footprint gadzooks!
Bob_FJ
As a displaced Brit, you will be even prouder to know that your old home country is also pitching in to save the planet by plopping expensive windmills all over the countryside and rationing electrical power to consumers.
The remarkable aspect of all this is that the UK has a carbon footprint, which is almost 40% higher than yours in kangaroo country!
So this self-sacrificing effort by your ex-countrymen (women and children) to freeze CO2 emissions below 1990 levels would result in a net reduction of warming by 2100 of 0.03C
I thank you (and also the many other Brits on this thread who have joined in the fight to save our planet).
Your sacrifice is heart-warming and has not gone unnoticed.
Max
Max,
Check out how the environmentalists live………….very nice.
22,000 square foot mansion………..
I guess duping people in the name of global warming is paying off handsomely for this climate crusader.
(This chick is pretty hot also).
Gisele Bündchen goodwill ambassador for the UN Environment Programme
The new home includes eight bedrooms, six-car garage, a lagoon-shaped swimming pool with spa, a weight room and a wine cellar, reports the Boston Herald. The house that Brady built also comes loaded with — get this — a covered bridge connecting two wings of the home, an elevator, a nursery for his son Benjamin, and a gallery.
The price? More than $20 million. That’s in addition to the $11 million that was spent to buy the 3.75 acres of land in Brentwood, Calif.
Now for the green part:
Gisele Bundchen, wife of the Patriots legend and the money maker in the relationship, is a United Nations environmental ambassador. So she’s under pressure for building a giant, energy-eating palace.
So Bundchen declared she had the home built with solar energy, energy-saving lighting, rainwater recovery systems, waste reduction and recycling programs, energy-efficient appliances and sustainable building materials, according to the Herald.
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201112/nfl-stars-environmentally-friendly-palace
Happy New Year, all! Here’s a recent interview you may find of interest – Robyn Williams of the ABC’s Science Show talking to Lord May; worth a listen/read, in my opinion. An excerpt (emphases mine):
Robyn Williams: So what do you make of someone like Lord Lawson, with whom you sit in the House of Lords, who has for many, many years, having been Chancellor of the Exchequer, a brilliant man, but nonetheless talks about climate change consistently over the years as if it is highly questionable. What do you say to him?
I had a look at columnist Polly Toynbee’s article, which I think he might be referring to; it’s from August last year and about why Britain must resist “Tea Party madness” (where else would it be but in the Guardian?) and it, too, is I think worth a read, from a climate change psychology perspective. She writes:
Now that’s what I call faith.
Alex Cull,
You may have heard of Fermat’s last theorem which was recently proved by the Cambridge mathematician Andrew Wiles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles's_proof_of_Fermat's_Last_Theorem
Or was it? There may only be a handful of people in the world who understand the ‘proof’ well enough to be able to know if Prof Wiles has got it right and I’m not one of them.
So, what to think? I must admit that I do believe that Andrew Wiles has come up with a genuine proof. But, would you say that ‘faith’ would be a more appropriate word?
Peter, that’s an intriguing comparison, but I don’t think it’s quite the same sort of thing.
1. For all the complexity of the maths, the question of the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem boils down to a simple yes/no proposition – either Wiles proved it or not. With the climate debate, there is no similar either/or “climate change is/not happening” proposition (in serious circles, anyway.) Did Wiles prove the theorem? Like you, I don’t understand the maths well enough to test it for myself. But based on the little I’ve learned about it, I think that there’s a strong likelihood that he did (barring new developments, of course). With climate change, there is no similar pair of “happening”/”not happening” alternatives to choose from. What is climate change? What is happening? It’s a vast, messy subject, where the abstractions of mathematics and physics collide with a vast array of natural processes that interact with one another in ways that are, as yet, imperfectly understood. It can’t be boiled down to a yes/no question.
2. Do I have faith that Wiles proved the theorem? No, I wouldn’t put it that way. I consider it likely that he did. What do I base that on, given my lack of mathematical expertise? For want of a better phrase, I’d say that for me, at the moment, it passes the “sniff test”. Actually, so did catastrophic man-made global warming, once – for me, during 2005 and part of 2006. Then it started to fail. There are quite a few reasons why Wiles’s proof currently passes the sniff test (for me) and why CAGW hasn’t for a long while; it’s late and I don’t want to list them all right now, but some are: a) no equivalent of the IPCC and its flaws, b) no equivalent of the Climategate emails with all their implications and c) no industry devoted to changing the way I live, based on some sort of dogmatic, simplistic interpretation of the Fermat solution.
That’s not all I wanted to write, and could be expressed better, but will have to do for the moment (it’s now after midnight here!)