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.
TonyB
My word, have you seen over at WUWT that back in August 1999 the GISS global T graph was very similar to all the others. More recently of course they have markedly lowered the “super El Nino” 1998, and with other subtle “corrections”, show a relentless climb in T, versus a plateau in the others.
Max
Also at WUWT, Spencer & Braswell have finally got their paper on clouds & feedbacks published in the Journal of Geophysical Research
Comment by Spencer:
Positive cloud feedback amplifies global warming in all the climate models now used by the IPCC to forecast global warming. But if cloud feedback is sufficiently negative, then manmade global warming becomes a non-issue.
Max, Reur 1457/1458 Euro Alps altitude.
The hypothesis by V of a “sudden” increase in height about 3,500 years ago does seem relatively fragile compared with other evidence. However, the lake Titicaca “recently” exposed shoreline which is not just higher, but sloping, together with nearby agricultural terraces up to 18,400 ft high does seem compelling evidence of catastrophe.
Incidentally, I fleetingly heard a news report on radio that latest research suggests that the famous “iceman” died at modest altitude and after pulling out the arrow shaft from his back, his buddies carried him up to the glacial area. This was reportedly based on pollen studies. I can’t find the original report of a few days ago, but from other reading he is thought to be about 5,300 YO, has a flint arrowhead embedded through his back, a wounded hand seemingly from combat, and was apparently originally laid out with reverence. (pity they crudely got him out with jackhammers etc)
Oh, and V showed evidence that the earth slowed in rotation and/or that its rotational axis changed. However, whilst Einstein agreed that there had indeed been a huge catastrophe, he argued that it was more likely associated with large tectonic movements that could give the same observational effects. (which supports the mountain building stuff)
Thanks Tonyb……..just doing my part to help the poor animals……I stay up nights worrying about polar bears and penguins.
At first, I was somewhat concerned about the noise from the generator disturbing my slumber. However, the Brute compound backs up to some sort of national park/nature reserve and I’ve parked all of the equipment and railroad tie staging lot at the back of the property next to the reserve so as not to disturb Mrs. Brute.
Nothing back there (except some owls and a few eagles nests)…………and a stream.
The area on the back of my property is heavily wooded though………I’ve been planning to clear cut the area for some time and sell off the lumber……this will offset the cost of the piping and the fuel to bulldoze the area to create my mini power plant.
The stream won’t be a problem as I’ve been contemplating damming it up for some time to create a fire pond in the event the boiler ash causes the woods to catch fire (wouldn’t want all that valuable lumber to go up in smoke now, would I?).
All in all…………a “win win” situation.
My deep concern regarding the environment is boundless……………
Bob_FJ
Yes I saw that item. I wrote about the reliability of temperature records at some length here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability/
It is common practice for modern day researchers-such as Hansen and Jones-to look at the old records, decide they aren’t accurate and change them, sometimes several times. Phil jones (in his proper official capacity) has received a number of multi million EU grants to study the historic temperature records (many of which I carry on my site)
Inevitably the past is made cooler which makes the modern world appear warmer.Hansen was caught out with this of course with his manipulation of the US records from the 1930’s.
Brute; You are truly an inspiration and your concern about the local wildlife and keenness to find new ways to conserve and recyle humbles me :)
Peter
Do think about it (a Carrington event) a bit more.
You live in a city. All The services stop abruptly. NO electricity/gas. NO water. No transport as there is no fuel. You can’t flush the toilet. NO money (other than cash) so your pension can’t be paid. You can’t buy food. Trucks can’t deliver. There is great physical danger to the infrastructre as devices short out causing fires that can’t be fought.
How long do you think civilisation would last? 2 days? 3 Days? The relatively localised bombing in Europe during WW2 is no comparison at all.
You undestimate the damage and destruction and the aftermath of a world (too) reliant on technology that is highly vulnerable.
Still, at least it would stop runaway global warming as most carbon use would cease. Ironically it seems that Brute would be least affected.
Tonyb
TonyB and Max,
I think its my turn to call you “alarmist”. Its far from clear that the risks of a solar disturbance present quite the danger you claim.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/08/27/2995543.htm?site=science&topic=space
That’s not to say that such risks shouldn’t be considered, and factored, into the design, when new infrastructure is built.It certainly should be, even if the assessed risk is as low as 1%. However, it should be recognised that the risks due to AGW are assessed at 90% or gretater.
It’s not a case of ‘either or’. All risks should be considered, and also the best possible scientific advice on way to mitigate those risks.
PeterM
You have stated:
No. I do not believe that I am an “alarmist” (nor is Tony, as far as I can tell).
He has simply stated that there is a real risk of a “Carrington event” some time in the future, that the potential “worst case” impact could be quite serious and that some relatively inexpensive measures could be undertaken to prevent the worst of this impact (which incidentally would also provide protection against an intentional attack from “Electro-Magnetic Pulse Weapons”).
You believe that the “worst case” damage from AGW is
I do not share your belief here, since it is not supported by any real data. The differences between Earth and Venus are so great (covered earlier on this thread) that this is not a possible scenario.
Then you opine:
I’d say that the case of “3 degrees of warming and a couple of metres of seal level rise” also lie in the realm of science fiction, Peter.
IPCC does not predict this sort of sea level rise, but rather a more modest 0.18 to 0.59 meters by year 2100.
The high end is based on totally unrealistic increases in CO2 (over 3 times the compounded annual growth rate we have seen since Mauna Loa started, at the same time as the UN projected growth in human population is estimated to be only one-fifth to one-third the past CAGR), with a total increase in CO2, which exceeds the total amount contained in all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves on this planet (also covered earlier on this thread). This is pure science fiction, Peter (or maybe, better yet, just pure fiction).
All of IPCC’s “scenarios” are based on the highly exaggerated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, which, in turn, is based on strongly positive net feedback from clouds.
More recent actual observations (after the IPCC report was published) show that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative instead of positive, and that this estimate is, therefore, off by a factor of 2 or 3 (also covered previously on this thread).
So a realistic “worst case scenario” would probably be a temperature increase of 1.6C by year 2100, with a corresponding sea level rise of 0.3 meters, with a “most likely” case (excluding any impact from natural variability) of 0.6C temperature rise and 0.18 meters sea level rise.
This is all nothing to get very concerned about, Peter.
It appears that YOU (not TonyB and I) are the alarmist here.
Max
Bob_FJ
Hi Bob
Yes. I saw that recent article about the Neolithic “ice man”, Ötzi, who was found high in the Italian (south Tyrolean) alps, but apparently died at a lower altitude and was then ceremonially buried on the mountain. The “evidence” is apparently some grain that was found in his stomach, which “dates” his death to April, while the burial has been “dated” by nearby pollen remains to August. Sounds plausible (but I wonder how they kept the body from deteriorating over those 4 months).
http://www.physorg.com/news202063671.html
Max
TonyB
Don’t know whether you have already seen this, but here is an interesting paper by Willis Eschenbach on the Earth’s “natural thermostat”, clouds (which, indidentally, even Kevin Trenberth has recently acknowledged as a possible explanation for recent atmospheric plus upper ocean cooling).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
Eschenbach’s “heat engine” explanation makes sense to me, as an engineer, and the conclusions on net negative cloud feedback with warming are confirmed by the empirical data observed and reported by Spencer + Braswell.
Interesting stuff.
Max
Max,
You say “differences between Earth and Venus are so great … that this is not a possible scenario.”
The present evidence is that it’s not the most likely scenario. The thought that it is not possible turns on the fact that it didn’t happen in prehistory when CO2 levels were much higher than now. The problem with that argument is that the sun is thought to be more active now than it was then.
I’m not sure if anyone has attempted to put a figure on the possibility of it happening, if CO2 and other GHGs are allowed to increase out of all control, but it is not zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
PeterM
You brought up “runaway warming” and the “Venus effect” as a “worst case AGW scenario” for Earth (1525).
Just to show you how totally absurd this remark is, let me give you a few facts:
Venus has an atmosphere estimated to have a mass of 480 million Gt, of which around 96.5% is CO2, so its atmosphere contains 463 million Gt CO2.
Earth has an atmosphere estimated to have a mass of 5.14 million Gt, of which around 390ppmv or 593 ppm(mass), so our atmosphere contains around 3,047 Gt CO2.
So the CO2 ratio Venus:Earth = 463,000,000 / 3,047 = 152,000:1
All the fossil fuels on Earth (optimistically estimated) would generate around 6,340 GtCO2, so when all fossil fuels on Earth are consumed the CO2 ratio Venus:Earth would be:
463,000,000 / (3,047 + 6,340) = 49,000:1
(Assuming, of course that all the emitted human CO2 would “stay” in the atmosphere; current experience is that between 50% and 60% “stay” in the atmosphere.)
Can you see how utterly silly your statement was? (I certainly hope so.)
Max
PeterM
You shot yourself in the foot again with your Wiki reference (1536).
Wiki says:
I’d modify Wiki’s statement by replacing the word “virtually” with “absolutely” (see 1535).
Max
PeterM
Another quote from your cited Wiki reference (1534):
I may not agree with Houghton on a lot of things, but here I certainly do.
Max
PeterM
To underscore how silly your remark was that the worst case AGW scenario would be runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 such as Venus, let’s look at another example:
Mars has an atmosphere of only around 12% the mass of that of Earth.
But it is 95.3% CO2, so the Mars:Earth CO2 ratio = 200:1
And if and when all the fossil fuels on Earth have been consumed and converted to atmospheric CO2 this ratio will be around 50:1
Yet the surface temperature on Mars is estimated to be –5C to –85C.
So much for runaway greenhouse warming from CO2.
Max
Wow!
Surprised the ultra liberal NY Times even permitted this story to be published considering how heavily they censor news stories that question the global warming religion.
Review Finds Flaws in U.N. Climate Panel Structure
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations.html?_r=3&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations.html?_r=3&hp
Max,
Blimey you’re quoting John Houghton! You’ll be quoting the IPCC next.
What does “virtually no chance” mean? 1 in a 1000 maybe? Well I’m sure even the worst airline in the world would have a better safety record than that, in terms of crashes to successful flights, but would you want to fly with them?
James Hansen has discussed the issue in his recent book “Storms of my Grandchildren” writing:
“The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can predict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin. Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries. Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warming.
After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
None of us will be around to find out if James Hansen is right.
Is this really the worst case scenario? If it isn’t I can’t think of what is!
Brute
You are right.
If even The New York Times publishes a story that is critical of how the IPCC does its business, it is a clear sign that the “tide has turned” (I can still remember the glowing NYT articles about “scientists” confirming “unequivocal anthropogenic warming” when IPCC first issued its 2007 SPM report). Sic transit gloria.
I really wonder if the IPCC bureaucrats are getting the picture, though.
Yvo de Boer was astute enough to resign as the executive secretary of the UN’s climate bureau after the Copenhagen disaster, but it sounds like the IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is going to try to stonewall and hang in there as long as he can in order to hold on to his position.
I would personally give him at most 12 months.
Let’s hope he gets replaced by a real climate scientist, who is, in addition, unbiased and objective on the whole AGW issue (like John Christy), but maybe that is too much to wish for.
Max
PeterM
Sorry Peter, but you are wrong once again (1540). John Houghton did not say “virtually no chance” (of a Venus type runaway GH warming on Earth).
He said (let me repeat, since you apparently misunderstood it):
Did you get that: “no possibility” means not 1 in 1000 (as you surmise); it means 0 in 1000.
It is something that cannot possibly occur here, so is certainly not the “worst case AGW scenario”, regardless what crackpot activist, James E. Hansen writes in his book.
Forget about it Peter. It’s fiction, and you only make yourself look ridiculous by your silly claim (as does Hansen).
Max
Max,
Just on a point of informaton – Venus is closer to the sun than we are and Mars is further away. So Venus is warmer and Mars is colder. Yet Venus is thought at one time to have been Earth-like with surface water present but a warming sun changed all that.
I suppose what you are saying is that we too could have all the CO2 we liked without getting too warm if we were just a little further away from the Sun . Just get a tow in the right direction? I wonder if the IPCC have thought of that? Maybe you could write in and tell them!
Pete,
Send your money in today! Buy some carbon credits and show the world your commitment to saving the planet!
Carbon Financial Instruments – Aug 30, 2010
Carbon Financial Instruments – Aug 30, 2010
August 30, 2010 Updated end of day.
CCX CFI CLOSE CHANGE
CFI 2003 $0.10 $0.00
CFI 2008 $0.10 $0.00
CFI 2010 $0.10 $0.00
Max,
Actually its the IPCC who say “runaway greenhouse effect — analogous to Venus – appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
So that’s all right then isn’t it? Nothing to worry about! We know how much faith you guys have in IPCC pronouncements.
I’ll have to write to Stephen Hawking and tell him to stop worrying about it too!
PeterM
You surmise:
No, Peter, you “suppose” wrong – yet once again (see earlier posts on this).
The “distance form the sun” does play a role. Venus gets around 2x the solar warming that Earth does and Mars around 1/2, so both are considered by scientists to be outside the “habitable zone”, but it is the mass of the atmosphere (rather than its CO2 content) that plays the major role. In addition, there is not enough CO2 in all the fossil fuels on Earth to get to an atmospheric CO2 level of much above 1,000 ppmv, while Venus (and Mars) both have 95+% CO2.
As far as I am aware, IPCC has not postulated a Venus type runaway GH effect on Earth from human CO2 (as has Hansen), and, in any case, it is a myth. Do you have info to the contrary?
Max
Brute
Your poster brings back memories of the old Depression song (modified for today):
“Brother, can you spare a trillion”
Max