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
Yeah. The “grandchildren” gimmick is slick.
You ask (of James E. Hansen):
First of all, I think you are way overplaying the “danger” aspect. But, I’ll admit that it “sells” well. As I recall, Lindzen has used the same line. Unfortunately, there are a lot of “fringe” nuts on both sides of the multi-billion dollar AGW debate, but (unlike those “fringe nuts” fighting a “holy war”) their “bark” is worse than their “bite”.
And, as I said previously, Hansen probably really does genuinely believe what he has repeated so many times now.
But as far as his inner motivation goes, I am no psychologist or student of human behavior, but let me suggest a few key words:
Admiration
Antipathy for our industrial world
Crusader zeal
Desire for retribution of perceived “climate criminals”
Fame
Fear
Feeling of “doing something good” for the world
Gaia worship
Guilt for our affluent life style
Guilt for the misery of the poorest
Importance
Longing to return to an imagined simpler and more idyllic lifestyle
Moralism
Pseudo-religious fervor
Respect
Scientific recognition
Self-aggrandizement
Self-anointed “savior of the planet” syndrome
Self-glory
Self-gratification
Self-righteousness
Socio-political ideology
There may be others, but these are the first that come to mind (purely my observation, of course).
Max
PeterM
Hansen probably does believe what he says (he’s guilty of staggering hypocrisy if he doesn’t) but that doesn’t make it correct.
Half the population of the US believes that the world was put here 4000 years ago by an allegedly benign supernatural being who somehow included disease and pestilence in his perfect creation, together with fossilised remains to throw paleontologists off the scent, but that doesn’t make that right either!
Is Hansen retired now? I thought he was employed by NASA.
James P,
You might have a point except that the half of the USA which believes in Creationism is also the half that believes AGW is a hoax! Also, you might upset Brute with that sort of talk!
It might be useful for you to list all the other topics which you feel mainstream science has got wrong too. Or is AGW the only thing?
Max,
James Hansen may be incorrect about some things, I’m not sure I agree with him about Cap and Trade for instance, but nevertheless he’s spent a lifetime working in the field of atmospheric Physics. Not just the Earth’s atmosphere but the atmosphere of other planets too, and in particular Venus.
The idea he’s just made it all up for any of the silly reasons on your list is just nonsense. James Hansen is typical of many scientists, he obviously likes the scientific side of his job and obviously looks uncomfortable when he’s in the public view. Americans should show him some respect and, at least, accept he’s giving them his honest opinion about the scale of the problem.
PeterM
You made some fairly bold statements (953). Let’s analyze them.
I’d agree with the first part (James Hansen being “incorrect about some things”. For instance:
– “dangerouis CO2 level of 450 (or even 350) ppmv”, leading to
– “tipping points” with “rapid changes proceeding practically out of our control”, that will lead to
– “irreversible changes” our planet’s climate, leading to
– “extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species”
– “sea level rise this century that may be measured in meters” and
– “highly deleterious changes” to human society
His “hidden in the pipeline” postulation has been falsified by the past years’ global warming of both atmosphere and ocean (Trenberth’s “travesty”). In addition, it appears that he is most likely wrong on the global acceptance of a carbon tax.
Richard Lindzen has also “spent a lifetime working in the field of atmospheric Physics”, and he totally disagrees with Hansen, so the basis for your argumentation has been invalidated.
Will cover other points in a separate post.
Max.
–
Max,
You seem still keen to adopt the persona of the concerned citizen trying to weigh the scientific evidence. Is Lindzen correct or is it Hansen?
It would be good if it were true. However, when you make statements like: “Climatology has been infiltrated by the likes of James E. Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc., and these in turn bring in more like-minded types. Some may actually think they are trying to save the planet, while others are simply charlatans”.
You betray your true feelings. Its all for show. Underneath you are just the same as the guy I quoted in #949. The one who fantasised about James Hansen being eaten, maybe still alive, after a plane crash, by his supporters!
PeterM
I’ll come back to your 953, and forget the silliness you just posted in 955 concerning my alleged “true feelings” (or the ludicrous comparison of me to some idiot who posted about Hansen being eaten after a plane crash).
You seem to be a “believer” in the Hansen doomsday message and in his approach when you write:
I’d say that there is a bit more “grandstanding” going on here, Peter. Appearing to look “uncomfortable” may be part of it.
In his testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, James E. Hansen made the following statements in invoking the specter of an imminent man-made climate disaster for the environment, human civilization and the planet itself:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
This is a scientifically unfounded “statement of faith”. Despite Hansen’s claims, no scientific data are presented to support the suggestion of imminent “tipping points”. Instead, the most recent temperature record shows a significant slowing down in the rate of temperature rise over the past decade as compared with the two prior decades, despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased steadily and have reached record levels.
The suggestion that “positive feedbacks predominate” is not based on any fact, i.e. there is no scientific evidence to support this postulation. In fact, the record shows that just the opposite is true. The statement that“huge climate changes” are “driven by very weak, very slow forcings” is not substantiated by any hard evidence. In fact, recent physical observations on clouds (Spencer et al.) show just the opposite. In an interview cited previously Trenberth states that net energy may be reflected into space with clouds acting as a natural thermostat (i.e. a net negative feedback).
Hansen’s postulated “predomination” of strong positive feedbacks is pure hyperbole, based on “GISS modelE” climate model studies, which have been programmed to include these positive feedbacks and result in disaster predictions.
The suggestion that “human forcing” is “much stronger, much faster” and the claim that “positive feedbacks are beginning to occur” are both pure hypothesis, based on computer model projections and hype. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for Hansen’s statement concerning “positive feedbacks” that “are beginning to occur”. Where is the hard evidence of these suggested “positive feedbacks” and what are they?
Even more importantly, why are “negative feedbacks” (such as those observed for clouds) ignored by Hansen?
Other quotations:
This dire prediction is not based on facts. With the exception of the relatively tiny Antarctic Peninsula, which sticks up into the Antarctic Sea toward South America and represents around 1% of the continent, the rest of Antarctica is cooling, rather than warming. Contrary to Hansen’s disaster prediction, the facts on the ground show that the WAIS is not in any danger of a “likely demise”.
IPCC itself usually presents a standpoint on climate that is rather more alarming than realistic, often ignoring data that do not support its claims and projections. But even IPCC does not make such ridiculous predictions regarding Antarctic ice.
In a later paper Hansen “ups the ante” on CO2:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
Whether the “dangerous” level is postulated to be 450 or 350 ppmv, the claim is pure, unsubstantiated hyperbole without any scientific support. Today’s CO2 level, as measured at Mauna Loa, is around 390 ppm by volume. The greenhouse theory tells us that an increase to 450 ppm would result in an increase of global average temperature of 0.2 degrees C. This is much less of an increase than we experience in daily temperature swings, without reaching any “tipping point”.
Hansen then switches into policy proclamations, stating that “science” (who’s that?) “provides a clear outline for what must be done”. The arrogance of equating himself with “science” is mind-boggling.
It is clear that Hansen painted a false prediction of imminent disaster to the U.S. House of Representatives in order to sell his “four point strategy”:
· Phase out coal with a moratorium on coal-fired power plants
· Enforce a rising tax on carbon emissions
· Focus efforts to reduce human emissions of methane, ozone and black carbon
· Take steps to draw down atmospheric CO2 via farming/forestry and burning biofuels with CO2 sequestration
My question: What in the world is a tax-payer funded climate scientist (and self-made environmental activist) doing, telling the U.S. Congress what policies they should pursue?
Hansen has whined in the past about being “muzzled” for his views, but he generates articles and other doomsday rhetoric on AGW at an alarming rate.
Far from being muzzled, Hansen released his disaster predictions via ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=3223473&page=1
In a lead-in to this article by the Inhabitat environmental site, entitled, “NASA puts global warming tipping point within 10 years” the following statement was made:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/05/31/nasa-puts-global-warming-tipping-point-within-10-years/
Indeed, it does sound like the “worst parts of the Bible”, with all the implications of punishment by the Almighty (in this case “Nature”) for human sins and transgressions (in this case burning fossil fuels), using a clever combination of fear and guilt to motivate the public into accepting draconian measures presented as a “four point strategy”.
Hansen is not an elected public official responsible to his constituents for making policy recommendations. He is a US Government employee, paid by taxpayer money to provide a transparent and unbiased temperature record to the U.S. public, rather than moving away from his area of expertise and getting into politics and policy issues, much less making morality statements.
In testimony to the US House of Representatives, another equally well-respected climate scientist, John Christy, directly contradicted Hansen’s disaster predictions in testifying that projections of drastic climate changes in the future from global warming have not been adequately proved. In his testimony he told the lawmakers that, “scientists cannot reliably project the trajectory of climate”, adding “whatever happens, we will adapt to it”.
Peter, I realize that you have a different opinion on what I have just written, as is borne out by your statement cited above.
In my opinion, the more levelheaded statements of Christy make much more sense than the shrill, headline grabbing disaster predictions of Hansen, so I’d be inclined to show my “respect” and give my “scientific credence” to Christy, rather than Hansen.
Max
Max,
You claim “The suggestion [by James Hansen] that ‘positive feed-backs predominate’ is not based on any fact….”
As usual, you have either not understood, or have chosen to not understand, what is being said. You’ll be aware of the 100kyr glacial/interglacial cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
caused, or so the theory goes, by regular and calculable perturbations of the earth’s orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Climatic change from interglacial to glacial periods, is much more intense than would be expected from a straightforward calculation of the forcings which these perturbations of earth’s orbital characteristics should induce.
This can only be explained by the incorporation of strong positive feed-backs in climatic models.
This is the fact to which James Hansen alludes.
PeterM
There you go again (957).
Paleoclimate data? Models? Facts? Hmmm…
In other words: “Our models can only explain this if we incorporate strong positive feedbacks”.
This is no empirical evidence, Peter. It is simply an “argument from ignorance” (a.k.a. argumentum ad ignorantiam). [Check Wiki.]
Another example (mentioned previously here) is:
Yawn!
Max
If that is the case, then what stopped the changes in either direction? Positive feedback implies continual reinforcement, does it not? Something must be putting the brakes on!
Hansen also seems to be invoking two separate mechanisms, or is it the same one that makes it go both ways..?
I may be a bear of very little brain, but some things do bother me.
JamesP
You are not a “bear of very little brain”, you are just a bit too logical for PeterM (or James E. Hansen).
Max
JamesP,
Your quoted statement “Huge natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak, very slow forcings and positive feedbacks.” is correct.
You ask what has stopped the changes – a good question. The changes in the Earth’s orbit are cyclical and the geological cycles do follow that pattern. However, if the feedbacks were strong enough then they could have lead to a runaway effect. That what has happened on Venus, the next planet towards the sun. Naturally you’d expect it to be warmer than Earth, but it is even hotter than that because of the nature of its atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Fortunately the Earth’s feedbacks, whilst enough to cause amplification, are not strong enough to cause a runaway effect. CO2 levels have been high in the Earth’s past so it not likely that increased levels will lead to thermal runaway in the future, unless, that is, the sun has increased its intensity, enough to make a difference, in the last hundred million years or so.
It is considered unlikely, but a possibility.
Pete,
After reading this story, don’t do anything that you’ll regret. I know your affinity for Marxist doctrine………but there will be other unelected, wasteful, useless, unaccountable, authoritarian organizations that you can admire in the future I’m sure.
U.N. “falling apart” under Ban Ki-moon: ex-official
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The former head of the United Nations’ internal oversight office has accused U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of poor leadership, saying that the world body was “falling apart” and becoming irrelevant.
The former head of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Inga-Britt Ahlenius of Sweden, said that under Ban’s watch “there is no transparency, there is (a) lack of accountability.”
“I regret to say that the (U.N.) Secretariat now is in a process of decay,” Ahlenius said in what she described as an “end-of-assignment report.” She left the job last week and no successor has so far been named.
“It is not only falling apart … It is drifting into irrelevance,” she wrote.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE66J5W820100720
Brute,
So what has the so-called decline of the UN to do with “Has Global warming Stopped”?
Marx is actually taught in Politics courses in Australian Universities. Is that allowed in the USA? Things have changed over the years but certainly organisations like The British and Australian Labor parties, were influenced by Marxist thinking during their formative years.
I’m not sure that Marx was right about the class struggle being between just the working classes and capitalism. Or, that he was right about democratic government being nothing more than a tool of the capitalist classes. I would say that the issue of AGW has highlighted that there is a clear division between those who support the principles of democratic government, on the one side, and those who think it is their enemy especially if it cannot be bribed, threatened or otherwise manipulated to suit the short term interests of the multinational corporations.
JamesP and PeterM
As Peter has pointed out (961), Venus has a different atmosphere from that on Earth. It is composed of 97% CO2. But the biggest difference is in its atmospheric mass. The pressure at the surface is 92 times that on Earth. Temperature is 460C.
Mars also has an atmosphere composed primarily of CO2 (95%). But the atmospheric pressure is only 0.7% of than on Earth. Temperature varies from –5C to -87C.
In addition, Venus is only 108 million km from the sun, while Mars is 228 million km. Since the solar radiation is proportional to the square of the distance, Mars only receives around one-fourth the solar radiation that Venus does. Both planets lie at the edge of the estimated planetary habitable zone in our solar system. But this effect on temperature is secondary to the atmospheric mass.
So the major differences affecting temperature between Mars and Venus are the total mass (rather than the composition) of the atmosphere and the distance from the sun.
A “runaway greenhouse effect” on Earth, similar to the one on Venus, resulting from human CO2 emissions is not likely, according to Peter (unless the sun also changes its intensity).
My guess is that it is about as likely as our solar system being devoured by the close approach of a black hole. Not something to spend too much time worrying about (or too much effort trying to mitigate against).
Max
JamesP and PeterM
Hansen’s postulation that “positive feedbacks predominate” and that a “dangerous” CO2 level of 450 (or even 350) ppmv will lead to “tipping points” and “irreversible” climate change is not supported by out planet’s geological history.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times higher than today and we have not experienced “doomsday” yet.
Max
Max,
You say “CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times higher than today…” but not while human beings have been around.
Also sea levels have 7 metres or more higher too. It may not be ‘doomsday’, and the borders of Switzerland may well be unaffected, but there’ll be a lot of Americans who’ll not be too happy about having to put on a wet suit and diving gear to gain access to their homes!
Max,
Not sure why I typed your name in the box last time but the posting was, as you can guess because its so sensible, from me!
Actually my figure of 7 metres was as severe underestimate for the rise in sea level when CO2 levels were as as high as you quote. More like 100’s of metres!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
How about keeping CO2 levels, temperatures and sea levels as close as possible to what they were in the previous century? Isn’t that a better option?
Peter #967
Why are temperatures, sea levels etc in the 20th Century -when they were supposedly considerably influenced by man- actually better than the ‘natural’ values experienced in preceding centuries?
Surely you want the natural state to prevail, not one tampered with by man? Seems somewhat inconsistent.
Tonyb
It’s that nasty anthropogenic CO2 – much worse than the ordinary sort…
PeterM
Your 966 shows that you have a great fantasy (back to the 7 meter sea level rise myth).
Then you add (967):
I am not sure what you mean by “a better option”, but this question brings us back to the “Goldilocks optimum” quandary, which we have discussed previously, but which you have been unable (or unwilling) to answer:
What would you consider to be the “Goldilocks optimum just right” globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature for our planet (please choose one of the below)?
1. The temperature recorded in 2008?
2. The 1998 temperature (0.2C higher)?
3. The 1995 temperature (same as 2008)?
4. The 1988 temperature (0.1C lower)?
5. The 1965 temperature (0.5C lower)?
6. The 1944 temperature (0.2C lower)?
7. The 1921 temperature (0.6C lower)?
8. The 1910 temperature (0.8C lower)?
9. The 1878 temperature (0.3C lower)?
10. Some other year between 1850 and 2010?
Once you have picked your choice for the “Goldilocks optimum just right” globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature, we can discuss your thoughts on “keeping CO2 levels” such that this optimum temperature will be reached. We an also discuss the corresponding “optimum” sea level.
Awaiting your reply.
Max
Max,
I know you consider scientific findings a myth but in the last interglacial period when temperatures were just 1-2 deg higher generally , and slightly higher at the poles, like now, sea levels were indeed about 7 metres higher than they are currently.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html
Notice this paper is from “Nature” which, unlike “Energy and Environment” or the “Plumbers Gazette” I would call a proper scientific source!
Yes, and before you tell me, I know that this was all natural. The combination of each of the components in the Milankovitch cycles: axial tilt, axial precession and orbital eccentricity would have added up to a small difference in the climate forcing.
So there you go. Just a couple of degrees difference can cause a sea level change of 7 metres.
So yes, TonyB, I have no objection to choosing the 19th century atmospheric parameters to 20th century paramters. But the point you are making, and Max too, with all the yearly temperatures which he quotes is rather academic at the moment.
Its like an obese 120kg person saying he’s not going to start his diet unless the relative advantages of 65kg vs 70kg, as a final target, can be conclusively proved in advance!
PeterM
Wrong again, Peter. I do not consider scientific findings a “myth”, if these show lower sea levels during the Ice Age.
I consider projections of future sea levels, such as those made by James E. Hansen, Al Gore or Ban Ki Moon (7 meters increase in this century) as a “myth”, however. So does IPCC, BTW.
How about you?
Forget your silly analogy to the “obese person”. Just simply tell me your optimum “Goldilocks just right” globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature.
Max
Peter #971
Glad to hear you are happy with the 19th Century atmospheric parameters. Here is my article tracing the development of 19th Century temperatures from 1810, through the life of Dickens.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/
Perhaps you would like to tell us which of the years suits you particularly well?
Perhaps Max would also like to tell us his favourite Goldilocks year?
Personally, if we can’t have modern day temperatures I’d go back to the first few decades of the 18th Century when they were very similar to todays.
Tonyb
Max,
You say “I do not consider scientific findings a ‘myth’, if these show lower sea levels during the Ice Age.” But you do if they show that just a few degrees of warming can raise sea levels by several metres?
I quite like what you call my ‘silly analogy’! That shows it must a good one!
Yes, lets discuss whether we should stabilise CO2 levels at 330 ppmv or 350ppmv or whatever. When they start heading in that direction I’d be delighted to give you a figure. But at the moment we are stuffing down the doughnuts and creamcakes and heading in completely the wrong direction.
It doesn’t much matter whether we settle back at 350ppmv or 330ppmv. +0.15degC or + 0.30 degsC. It like choosing between 75kg or 80kg – both can be healthy weights, and we don’t have to decide right now in any case.
TonyB,
If you are feeling the cold in your old age, why don’t you retire somewhere warmer like Spain? You can still draw your pension there I believe.
It wasn’t really that hot in the early 18th century!