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.
Too much to hope that we shall see Susan vs. the Bishop, I suppose? Well, not without some editing, anyway… :-)
Max, Reur 1430:
Well, I have not read it either for decades, but I understand that V’s argument was not that the Alps were created recently, but that they were “suddenly” elevated to increased height. Ginenthal quotes several authors that suggest that several mountain ranges were globally elevated a few thousand feet in non-uniformity in recent millennia. I wondered your thoughts on this because you have associated earlier high altitude human habitation in the Euro-Alps with climate change.
But, for instance, concerning the account when the sun stood still in the sky, there were also accounts of an extra long night in the opposite hemisphere?
Oh, but it might be in the geology book, but: that Mammoths were mysteriously frozen to a Dodo, in a climate that could not possibly provide the tonnes of green food that they required daily?
Oh and that suggests a tilting of the Earth’s axis of rotation, and there is an ancient advanced settlement (per archaeology) apparently relocated somewhere up north that is impossibly cold for survival today.
Oh and….. And….
Alex
I watched Newsnight and I thought neither the Bish or the scientist he was debating with came over too well. Andrew Montford seemed rather nervous and didn’t really expand on the subject.
Newsnight is a very difficult environment (especially when you’re on a video link and not in the studio face to face with the person you are debating with).
It’s the sort of high pressure environment where you need some training and past experience, which is why Politicians- who are never off the media- manage to come over as so slick.
Still, it was nice to see sceptics actually being put up for discussion.
tonyb
TonyB, yes, it was a bit of an awkward set-up, as you say. Not brilliant, but could have been a lot worse, really. A draw?
The thing is, I suppose, that three or four years ago an event of this nature would have been confidently ascribed to man-made climate change (or at least the hints would have been very heavy.)
The takeaway message from BBC Newsnight from 2007 would have surely been something like: “The scientists say events like this will become even more common as the planet warms. Are the most vulnerable among us starting to pay the price for our inaction?”
Whereas in tonight’s programme, none of the commentators appeared particularly confident about coming out with any kind of overall conclusion about the weather pattern that had caused the flooding.
Or another way of looking at it might be that all sides are showing an appropriate degree of caution.
ALL:
Oh dear, more bad news for Oz drought/climate change alarmists:
Melbourne water storages total last Friday 19th: 39.2 % full
At same time last year: 27.7% full
Black = 2010, Blue = 2008, Green = 2009
I can’t wait to see the Novemberish peak expected from a big snow melt. It should be much better than 2009, because there seems to be a trend of regular rainfall keeping the catchment soils wet, resulting in good rain run-off, and it has been a continuing bigger snow season so-far.
And a good La Nina too, so far.
Alex
I thought the first scientist who set the scene (from Britain?) gave a good performance that seemed even handed. The two debaters weren’t too confident although I understand there was a time delay on the sound link which always causes problems. So a draw, yes.
tonyb
Bob_FJ
The postulation that the Alps may have abruptly gained altitude in historical times is interesting (1452). Certainly there have been “abrupt” changes in alpine climate over human history (and even before)
Receding glaciers reveal signs of earlier vegetation and even civilization, so there is no doubt that the glaciers were once smaller than they are today. This physical evidence points to two most recent periods (which are well known elsewhere, as well): the MWP and the Roman Optimum, with a colder period in between.
Old records tell us of advancing snow and ice covering up medieval alpine gold and silver mines at the onset of the LIA. The late climate science pioneer, Reid Bryson, reported on a recently uncovered medieval silver mine that had been covered up for centuries. Even though these are rarer, relics from Roman times have also been found under the receding ice. (We all know the historical story of Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants.)
So there is no question that the Alpine glaciers were smaller than they are today during the MWP and Roman Optimum. Glacier experts put their period of maximum extent (for 10,000 years) around 1850, when modern measurements started.
Then there is the history of a German-speaking alpine people called the Valser. Most of these live in the mountainous regions of eastern Switzerland today, with a few in western Austria and northern Italy. They originated in the high alpine valleys of the Valais (or Wallis, as it is known in German). Some time around the 10th and 11th century their region became overpopulated and they moved east to find new pastures. In doing so, they had to cross some pretty rugged territory, which is covered with ice today. These new settlers were welcomed by the feudal landlords, who were looking for able-bodied men to work the sparsely inhabited land and increase their wealth. The language border between the original Romantsch and the newly arrived “Valser-German” shifted forever as they settled in the new high alpine valleys far to the east of their original home. There they flourished until the end of the MWP, when it became too cold to continue grazing and cultivating these high alpine valleys. When the LIA came, many starved and others were forced to move down into the lower valleys and find work there in newly formed industries.
There are several records of this “migration and history of the Valser”.
Now to the point. Was the recorded change in climate in the alpine valleys caused by a shift in the altitude (due to an abrupt upward movement of the Alps) or rather due to the same long-term cyclical climate fluctuations, which have also been observed elsewhere (or possibly a combination of the two)?
The fact that the fluctuation occurred more than once (RO plus MWP) and that there was a cold period in between (the Dark Ages minimum) and after the MWP (the LIA), followed by the current warm period, leads me to believe that at least a major part was cyclical rather than a result of a single abrupt upward shift of the Alps.
But who knows? Velikovsky may have a part of the explanation.
Max
Bob_FJ
Back to Velikovsky and the Alps.
V’s postulation of an abrupt rise in altitude of the Alps being a possible explanation for the onset of the LIA (or the Dark Ages minimum) suffers from the same problem in logic as the current AGW explanation for the most recent warming there.
Both postulations can possibly explain one “abrupt” change, but cannot explain the many cyclical changes that have been observed.
So, even if both postulations were correct (let’s give them equal odds), they can only explain a piece of the puzzle, possibly only a small piece, at that.
Max
It was good to see Andrew Montford on Newsnight, even if we can all think of things we wish he’d said! I rather hoped he’d expand his closing remark about uncertainty to include everyone else, i.e. nobody knows very much, however much they pretend otherwise.
Still, it was good to see him on the BBC (his book got a mention, too) and the point that deforestation had magnified the flood damage was a useful counter to the suggestion of AGW.
Bob_FJ
In a recent NASA-GISS paper in Env. Sci. Tech., Hansen’s latest petard calls for the shutting down of all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030, in order to avoid catastrophic global warming caused by the emitted CO2.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Kharecha_etal.pdf
But wait!
What effect would this drastic step have on global warming?
The paper tells us that 1,994 billion kWh/year were generated from coal in 2009 and that the average CO2 emission is 1,000 tons CO2 per GWh generated.
So by 2030 Hansen’s plan would reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 2 GtCO2 per year.
Roughly half of this “stays” in the atmosphere (with the rest disappearing into the ocean, the biosphere or outer space) so the annual reduction after 2030 will be around 1 GtCO2/year and over the period from today to year 2100 the cumulative reduction would be 80.5 GtCO2.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
So the net reduction in atmospheric CO2 would be around 16 ppm(mass) or 10 ppmv.
If we assume (as IPCC does) that by year 2100 the atmospheric CO2 level (without Hansen’s plan) will be around twice the pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv or 560 ppmv, this means that with Hansen’s plan it will be 550 ppmv.
Today we have 390 ppmv.
Using IPCC’s (exaggerated) 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C we have:
Case 1 – no Hansen plan
560 ppmv CO2
ln(560/390) = 0.362
ln(2) = 0.693
dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.362 / 0.693 = 1.67C
Case 2 – Hansen plan implemented
550 ppmv CO2
ln(550/390) = 0.343
ln(2) = 0.693
dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.343 / 0.693 = 1.58C
So Hansen’s plan will result in a total reduction of global temperature by year 2100 of 0.09C.
But what will this non-measurable reduction of global temperature cost?
The capital cost investment to replace 1,994 billion kWh/year capacity with the least expensive alternate (current nuclear fission technology) is $1,500 per installed kW (a conservative estimate). [Note: If we replace it with wind or solar, it will cost several times this amount.]
1,994 billion kWh/year at a 95% on-line factor represents an installed capacity of:
1994 / 8760 * .95 = 0.247 billion kWh
This equals an investment cost of 0.247 * 1,500 = $371 billion
So much for this hare-brained scheme.
Why do Hansen and his co-authors not run us through this calculation?
Duh!
Max
Alex & Geoff’,
RE the Guardian/BobWard
I visited “The Air Vent” (Jeff Id’s site) and could not see anything about the Bob Ward thingy. So, with the thought that Jeff saw the survival of his comments with the first closure, but may be unaware of subsequent Open-delete-close, I left a comment on his “open Thread” #1 (and linked to here)
I have written here before of William Connolley, one of the founders of Real Climate vand a gatekeeper of Wikipedia climate section for many years making that highly referenced site a highly biased source of information. It seems he has been banned from Wiki
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/connolley-may-be-out-at-wikipedia/
tonyb
Geoff, Reur 1447:
I’m disappointed that you may not want to participate at the Guardian, seemingly on an issue of wanting to keep your true ID of Geoff Chambers. You have shown a good approach of getting to the core of matters in a truly succinct way, and thus I see it as a loss to our cause.
But what does the ID of Geoff Chambers mean to the world out there?
Sorry, but I’ve just done a restricted search on Google.com.au and found for:
Australia + “Geoff Chambers” (that = Oz + “exact phrase“)
Gives: About 7,610 results (0.18 seconds)
Is it not true that most blog comments are under an anonymous ID?
I still have three different Email ID’s, the first and my favourite of which was “Black Wallaby”, to infer an Oz origin, (image displayed at some sites), and I want to reinstate it one day:
However, I changed to Bob_FJ (abbreviating my full name, and my usual Email name) when I became too unpopular at a few sites, and it has mostly held good.
I have a third Email ID being after one of my dogs, which I’ve sometimes used over at RC, when Bob_FJ was “unpopular”
I guess that your ISP would allow at least four alternative Email addresses free, so why not try one to see if it is not necessary to use a different computer, or to change your computer IP?
Max,
I know I’m supposed to be banned but your 1460 back of the envelope calculation is even more way off than usual!
Trying to predict the state of the climate at the end of the century by using just 2009 data is a little tricky to say the least. If you think its possible, maybe you could show us how you could have done that for the end of the 20th century using just 1909 data.
But, your major blunder is your “Roughly half of this stays in the atmosphere” assumption. If you take this too far, as you have done, then CO2 concentrations can never fall! And we are indeed all doomed. Fortunately this is not the case.
Currently the level of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is 7.5Gt according to this link:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/total_world_co2_emissions_from_coal_gas_and_oil
Of which 2.5Gt are from coal.
Your rule of thumb is approximately correct for current emissions. 7.5Gt go into the atmosphere. 3.75Gt stay there and 3.75 Gt get absorbed. Therefore CO2 levels rise.
Bu what happens if only 3.75Gt goes into the atmosphere? Do the ocean and biosphere know this and reduce their take up accordingly to 1.875 Gt. Duh!
No, they don’t! They carry on as normal and therefore CO2 concentrations stay level.
As you’ll probably have read, a CO2 reduction to something like 20-25% of current levels will be required by the middle of this century to see significant reductions in CO2 concentrations, and it’s difficult to see how this can happen if Jim Hansen’s suggestion of phasing out coal fired power stations is ignored.
PeterM
Welcome back! (I missed you, believe it or not.)
Well, as far as the calculation is concerned (1460/1464), there is no assumption that everyone is going to adopt Hansen’s hare-brained scheme. After all, it was only made for the USA (with the hope that other nations would follow the US lead).
So the assumption is that all other emissions continue to grow at a modest rate, in order to maintain the growth in atmospheric CO2 at the historical (since Mauna Loa started in 1958) and current (last 5 years) compounded annual growth rate of 0.4% per year (IPCC Scenario B1).
At this rate we would reach 560 ppmv by year 2100 without Hansen’s plan and 10 ppm less, or 550 ppmv, if Hansen’s scheme were implemented.
And this reduction in atmospheric CO2 would lead to a calculated reduction in greenhouse warming of 0.09C.
At an investment cost (to replace the shut down coal plants with new nuclear plants) of $371 billion.
A bad deal, as I am sure any sane person would agree.
And this is why Hansen et al. do not show the “impact” and “costs” calculation for their hare-brained proposal (they would be laughed off the stage).
But let’s go a step further, just to show how absurd Hansen’s proposal really is. Hansen hopes the implementation of his plan in the USA will lead other nations to follow.
Let’s say that all nations of this world decided to implement Hansen’s plan.
Worldwide electrical power output is 4 times that of the USA, or
4 * 4,100 = 16,400 billion kWh/year.
An estimated 41% of this comes from coal = 6,724 billion kWh/year
Subtracting the US power generated from coal = 6,724 – 1,994 = 4,730 billion kWh/year
Per GWh this generates 1,000 tons CO2 or a total of 4.7 GtCO2/year
Let’s say the rest of the world follows the USA lead by 20 years, and has phased out all coal fired plants (and eliminated the “coal death trains”) by 2050.
Since 50% of the emitted CO2 “stays” in the atmosphere, we have a net reduction of 2.4 Gt/year staying in the atmosphere by year 2050, and over the period from today to year 2100 a cumulative reduction in atmospheric CO2 of 145 Gt.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt
So by year 2100 this is equal to a reduction in atmospheric CO2 from the rest of the world of
145 * 1,000,000 / 5,140.000 = 28 ppm(mass) or 19 ppmv
Together with the US reduction this makes 19 + 10 = 29 ppmv reduction
Without Hansen’s plan the 2100 atmospheric CO2 level would be 560 ppmv (IPCC Scenario B1)
And with the worldwide implementation of Hansen’s plan (all coal fired plants shut down) the atmospheric CO2 would be at 531 ppmv.
Using IPCC’s exaggerated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, this difference equals a reduction of warming by year 2100 of 0.24C.
And the investment cost to implement this plan by replacing all coal fired plants with the least expensive alternate (nuclear) would be $1,500 per kW or $1.17 trillion.
Conclusion: Hansen’s proposal remains a hare-brained scheme, whether it is globally implemented or only implemented in the USA.
And that was my point, which you have been unable to refute.
Max
Thanks BobFJ #1463 for the encouraging words. See you one day at Guardian CiF. You’ll know me by the special handshake and the codeword “Harmless”.
ps to my #1466
Why bother posting at the Guardian when you can twitter funny comments to the Climate Camp,and the Environment editor will publicise them for free? Here’s two from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/24/twitter-backfires-climate-camp
PeterM
In your 1464 you come up with a strange postulation:
In other words, you say that if human CO2 emissions were cut from 7.5 to 3.75 Gt/a that the amount of CO2 “disappearing” from the atmosphere (and therefore not contributing to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration) would change from 50% of 7.5 (= 3.75) to 100% of 3.75 (= 3.75), in other words, would remain constant, and that the amount “staying” in the atmosphere would thus change from 3.75 to 0 (and atmospheric CO2 would “level off”).
The logic is false here, as can be shown by the observed facts:
Over the 10-year period 1970 to 1979, global human CO2 emissions from all sources totaled 165 Gt, and atmospheric CO2 level increased from 324 to 336 ppmv, or from 493 to 512 ppm(mass).
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
So the theoretical increase in atmospheric CO2 should have been:
(512 – 493) * 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 32 ppm(mass)
But the actual was only 18 ppm(mass) = 57% “stayed” in atmosphere
Over the 10-year period 2000 to 2009, global human CO2 emissions from all sources totaled 282 Gt, and atmospheric CO2 level increased from 369 to 390 ppmv, or from 562 to 594 ppm(mass).
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
So the theoretical increase in atmospheric CO2 should have been:
(594 – 562) * 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 55 ppm(mass)
But the actual was only 32 ppm(mass) = 58% “stayed” in atmosphere
So your theory that the absolute amount “disappearing” from the atmosphere remains constant has been falsified by the observed facts; it increased proportionately to the amount emitted (i.e. the percentage “staying” in the atmosphere remains the same). Duh!
Max
.
PeterM
Now to your other criticism of my calculation of the impact and cost of the “Hansen petard”.
You wrote:
Don’t be so silly, Peter.
I used the IPCC estimate for year 2100 (“Scenario B1”, which assumes a continued CAGR of 0.4%/year in atmospheric CO2 concentration), with and without the impact of the proposed “Hansen plan”.
So it is not MY “prediction of the state of the climate at the end of the century”; it is IPCC’s prediction.
You shoot yourself in the foot with “from the hip potshots” without first thinking about what you are writing, Peter.
Max
TonyB
Re ur 1462, the news about Connolley is good news indeed.
How many years will it take before all the crap is cleaned out of Wiki and this site becomes a reliable source of data?
Probably depends on who will finally succeed him and how much heat is put on to “clean out the stable”.
Should be interesting in any case.
Max
PeterM
A picture is worth…
Max
Geoff, Reur 1467,
I was a bit puzzled by the Tweets you quoted until I opened the links. Then all became clear and very funny, if a bit sickening at some of the silly protest actions. One would think that even “serial pests” should at least research their targets to see if there is any context in what they think they might be trying to achieve. (if anything)
I guess that one day I should find out how Twitter (and Facebook) works. I wonder if the “serial pests” comprehended those hilarious Tweets?
Max,
You need to rework your calculation without the 50% assumption. Its always going to give you a too pessimistic answer.
Think about it. Your assumption means that atmospheric CO2 levels will never fall even with the tiniest levels of emission. If its just two molecules per year one will still stay in the atmosphere to cause a slight increase!
If CO2 and other GHG emissions halve, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will stay constant. If they reduce by 80% as recommended by the IPCC by the middle of the century then concentrations will start to fall.
If you think Jim Hansen’s scheme is “hare brained” maybe you can produce some figures to show how CO2 emissions can even be halved without it.
Max,
I missed your #1468 in which you said:
“So your theory that the absolute amount ‘disappearing’ from the atmosphere remains constant has been falsified by the observed facts; it increased proportionately to the amount emitted (i.e. the percentage ‘staying’ in the atmosphere remains the same). Duh!”
I did answer partly in 1474 but I’d just ask you to think about it some more. How can the Ocean and the biosphere ‘know’ what are the emissions of CO2 from human sources?
The Earth has taken up more in recent years , not because emissions have risen, but because concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have also risen.
If there were no emissions for a single year the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would not change much. According to your argument the absorption would be zero too. But don’t you see that the absorption would be pretty much the same as the previous year? Absorbtion is proportional to atmospheric concentrations not emissions. Or to be more correct, it is approximately proportional to the difference between the pre-industrialised value of 280ppmv and the current value, which is now 385ppmv.
Incidentally, the Earth has done a pretty good job at taking care of, effectively, half of our emissions so far. If we push it too far it might not do quite so well.