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.
Geoff, Reur 1610 on heretic astrophysicists etc.
I must confess that I was dubious about the existence of plasma in the COLD background environment in space, so I Googled it, and was surprised:
Plasma (physics)
EXTRACTS:
“…plasma is a substance similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized. The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields…
…Plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume.[4] All the stars are made of plasma, and even the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one…”
[RE; plasma temperature]…For this reason, the “ion temperature” may be very different from (usually lower than) the “electron temperature”. This is especially common in weakly ionized technological plasmas, where the ions are often near the ambient temperature…”
Among the useful links;
Hannes Alfven
I find it interesting that he was an engineer…. Quite a guy!
The Hannes Alfvén Prize, is a prize of plasma physics issued annually by the European Physical Society (EPS).
Thanks Geoff, I’m much edified, and should check-out your references.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the matter of Hawkins, (or is it Hawking?), and him changing his view on “Divine Creation”, I have some sympathy for his change in that view. I also have immense sympathy for his tragic health situation.
When it comes to “God”, for instance, I’ve sometimes marvelled at the MANY astonishing properties of water in its various phases, all of which are essential to life on Earth. To pick on just ONE, such amazing phenomenon, how come it just happens that liquid water, the predominant fluid in our eyes, is transparent to visible light from the Sun at its colour temperature of ~6,000 K? (well; down to about 100m in water anyway). On the other hand, near and far infrared light, just to the right in wavelength is stopped dead, just within the skin of water! OK, the answer to that one is relatively easy: If water was not like that in its huge array of complexity, we would not be here.
But: How do you explain amazing symbiotic biology such as like a certain orchid tricking a certain male wasp by imitating its female counterpart in appearance and odour, such that when the male wasp tries to hump it, there is a reflex from the flower touching the wasp for pollen transfer.
Well, given such an immense problem of understanding, it is easy to call-up a divine creator. However, as an engineer, I see this “excuse” as a FAR, FAR, greater problem, because how could such a creator, be created with his/her/its virtually infinite intelligence, and possessing infinitely powerful tools. Maybe Hawkins has recently twigged this consideration?
I’m an admirer of Paul Davies, a very communicative physicist, whom is a believer in a creator, but not that of the prevailing religions on Earth; rather some other mysterious “God“. (He is criticised by Richard Dawkins, whom I also admire)
Alex Cull
[Note: Links posted separately to avoid spam filter problems]
Interesting post on the BBC Radio 4 program about farming and flooding. Also very interesting that while it is billed as a report about “climate change impacts”, there is almost nothing about these in the background reports (guess you have to put the “climate change” brand on a program to make it sell today).
The UNEP graph you cited shows a model-based global sea level rise projection (2000-2100) of 85 cm as “worst case”, with around 15 cm as the lowest case. A middle case of 42 cm is also shown. This is based on data from the IPCC “Climate Change” report of 1995.
The latest AR4 IPCC report from 2007 show somewhat lower projections, with the “worst case scenario” (A1F1) having a range of 26 to 59 cm and the more realistic scenario (B1) at 18 to 38 cm.
[Link 1]
[Note: Scenario B1 is based on a continuation of the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of atmospheric CO2 of 0.4% per year, as has been the case since Mauna Loa records started in 1958 as well as over the most recent 5-year period. Scenario A1F1 is based on an increase of the CAGR to over 3 times this rate, despite a UN-projected decrease in the maximum CAGR of world population to 2100 (0.8%) or less than half of the observed 1958-2008 rate (1.7%)].
[Link 2]
The global tide gauge record shows that over the 20th century sea level rose by 17 cm or 1.7 mm/year, with the rise in the first half at 2.0 mm/year slightly higher than that of the second half at 1.4 mm/year.
[Link 3]
Professor Nils Axel Mörner, former head of the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes, has stated that the likely range is 5 to 15 cm rise by 2100 and that any forecast which exceeds 20 cm is “nonsense”
[Link 4]
Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has estimated that sea level rose by 1.6 mm/year over the period 1993-2003, but warns that more recent records using satellite altimetry have a large margin of error.
[Link 5]
The NOAA scientists performing the satellite altimetry measurements confirm the statement by Wunsch on the large margin of error of satellite altimetry sea level measurements:
[Link 6]
IPCC AR4 tells us that (based on satellite altimetry measurements) sea level rose by 3.2 mm/year over the 1993-2003 period. The tide gauge record shows around half this rate of rise (but IPCC does not tell us that and simply mentions the change in measurement methodology from tide gauges prior to 1993 to satellite altimetry with a small footnote).
[Link 1]
Whether “global” sea level rise means much to farming and flood control in a specific region of England is another question, which I cannot answer (BBC probably could not, either).
Max
Link1
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
Link 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png
Link 3
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtm
Link 4
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-49C5G0W-2&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6601d59a4c67a4897c365c16a4b51062
Link 5
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
Link 6
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
PeterM
Thanks for your personal thoughts on climate illiteracy and denial, with the analogy to hypertension, obesity and coronary disease.
The basic problem with your analysis is that hypertension and obesity have been shown by extensive physically observed data (i.e. empirical evidence) to increase the risk of coronary disease, while there is no such empirical evidence to support the “dangerous AGW” postulation.
This is a key difference between the two.
As the French say: Vive la difference!
But we have discussed this problem of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis before, and so far you have been unable to cite any empirical data to support it, while I have shown you empirical data based on actual physical observations, which tend to falsify it.
Max
Bob_FJ
You mention the unique properties of H2O, which are essential to life on Earth, as we know it.
One, of course, is that (except during Ice Ages) its freezing point occurs at temperatures seen only at the poles or at higher latitudes during winter months. Another is that its density increases with lower temperature until shortly above its freezing point; the solid form has a lower density than the liquid form, and thus floats on top. Without these unique properties, we would be in trouble.
Don’t know whether you have ever read any books (black comedy / science fiction) by the late Kurt Vonnegut, but there is one, “Cat’s Cradle”, which deals with an aberration of this unique property.
In this fictional work, a new solid form of H2O has been discovered, called “ice-nine”.
As Wiki summarizes:
The plot gets a bit more convoluted.
Finally the dictator (“Papa” Monzano) of a fictitious Caribbean island nation (San Lorenzo) obtains access to a sample of “ice-nine”. Learning that he is dying from an inoperable cancer, he decides to use the “ice-nine” to commit suicide.
As Wiki tells us:
The pre-programmed “disaster” then happens:
[The massive release of latent heat of fusion is not mentioned by Vonnegut, but possibly freezing of liquid water to “ice-nine” does not release a substantial amount of latent heat.]
This makes the postulated “tipping point” horrors from AGW sound benign. (And the odds of either really happening are likely to be pretty much close to the same.)
Max
Max, many thanks for your #1627 and the links – for some reason links 1 and 3 don’t open but the rest are fine. I had wondered where FoE had got their figure of 3.2 mm per annum but you’ve provided the answer.
Alex Cull
Sorry, Alex, but the links to the IPCC AR4 SPM 2007 report and the Holgate sea level study have apparently been changed.
New links are
Link1
IPCC AR4 SPM 2007
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Link 3
Holgate sea level study
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
Max
Alex Cull
A sideline: you ask where FoE got the 3.2 mm/year figure for sea level rise over the period 1993-2003.
As you saw, the answer is “from IPCC AR4 SPM report of 2007”.
But a more pertinent question might be: “where did IPCC get this figure?”
Carl Wunsch has reported a figure of 1.6 mm/year over this same time period, at the same time cautioning about the large margins of error in satellite altimetry sea level measurements.
The NOAA scientists who complained of large margins of error in satellite altimetry sea level measurements stated:
Guess IPCC ignored the Wunsch study and took the high end of the NOAA range and then “rounded it up” from 3.0 to 3.2 mm/year to make it look a bit better!
Max
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 02, 2010
Bill Gates and Andy Revkin think you’re stupid:
They both imagine that you’re ready to be lectured on energy efficiency by a guy who lives in a 66,000 square foot mansion
Bill Gates on R&D, a Carbon Tax and China’s Climate Role – NYTimes.com
Bill Gates’ house – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bill Gate’s House
New Jet Eases Travel Hassles For Bill Gates – NYTimes.com
Pete,
Just curious……..why are all of the proponents of “green” lifesyles such energy hogs?
Can’t you guys find someone who actually practices what they preach?
Max, re your #1638, yes very interesting re the provenance of IPCC’s 3.2 mm per annum. Thinking about it, 3 mm looks more rounded and thus more open to question, perhaps. 3.2 looks more precise and scientific – that .2 at the end gives the impression, on the face of it, that there must be some clever workings-out somewhere in the background!
Max,
Any denialist can point out that adverse health effects from obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are highly genetically dependent and, curiously, there will be certain individuals who have all the risk factors but suffer no apparent ill effects. So, its quite simple for him to dismiss all your so called empirical evidence as irrelevant. There will be no studies of anyone with his exact same DNA sequence, just like there are no studies of the effect of anthropogenic influences on other planets!
Add in further arguments about how fat stores can be a good thing, they certainly evolved for a reason, how very low blood pressure is used as an indicator of death and dig out a couple of references from anyone who’s come out with any conflicting theories (there are Lindzens everywhere if you just take a look) and its not too hard to convince yourself that its OK to keep eating those hamburgers!
Brute,
It is a valid to point out that the super-rich often do not practice what they preach. That is a question which will at some stage need to be addressed politically but their misbehaviour doesn’t change the science of atmospheric warming. Not one millidegree!
There is an interesting article here from Daniel Hannan
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100050950/so-should-conservatives-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/
Mr Hannan , unlike James Dellingpole, is at least prepared to consider the possibility and doesn’t sound at all sure even though he does lean towards a very conservative position. He makes this very intelligent comment:
“When presented with a new discovery, we automatically try to press it into our existing belief-system; if it doesn’t fit, we question the discovery before the belief-system. Sometimes, this habit leads us into error”
Max, Reur 1635
I’m very concerned about the risk of “ice-nine” water becoming a real threat, no matter how low the probability. Should not scientists and the U.N. be conducting research into this, and as to whether mitigating measures might be possible?
More importantly, how can we create public awareness? Perhaps if you could get your friend Barton Paul Levenson on-side, I’m sure he would do a good job on it.
His Email address is available here, BTW:
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/
PeterM
Discuss your 1642 with a physician.
High blood pressure, obesity (and elevated cholesterol levels) have been shown by empirical evidence to cause an increase in the incidence of coronary disease.
Elevated atmospheric CO2 levels have not been shown by empirical evidence to cause “dangerous AGW”.
It’s that simple, Peter. Don’t be a “denier” of the facts.
Max
PeterM
You write:
Are you referring to Al Gore or George Soros?
If so, I could heartily agree with you.
Max
Bob_FJ
You write that the “ice-nine” problem is potentially a much greater threat than “AGW”.
I agree fully.
I also agree with your suggestion that “scientists and the U.N. should be conducting research into this, and as to whether mitigating measures might be possible”.
But, so far, no one has found out how to parlay it into a multi-billion dollar business with a trillion dollar tax jackpot in sight for the politicians of this world.
That’s the real challenge here.
Max
You’re confusing the “super rich” with super rich climate change activists.
The super rich climate change activist is simply a liar as the “super rich” are merely sucessful and prosperous……(without all of the environmental pontification).
So Al Gore, Bill Gates, Prince Charles and George Soros’ energy consumption and “carbon emissions” are somehow different than everyone else’s ? Bill Gates’ private jet burns Unicorn tears and mulberry juice? Their carbon emissions don’t affect the atmosphere but yours do?
No Pete……you choose to look the other way………you choose to excuse their environmental “transgressions” and their carbon “sins” because they’re the leaders of your faith.
Glad to hear that these guys energy use is somehow exempt…………last time I checked, their cars burn the same gasoline as mine does and I use less of it………so if they are considered the high priests of the “green” movement, I’ll model my energy consumption after them and be “green” also.
Looks just like my place………
Exclusive Photo Gallery: Check out the Carbon Footprint of Al Gore’s New Ocean-View Mediterranean Villa
The Los Angeles Times reported last week that Al and Tipper Gore greatly expanded their carbon footprint with the purchase of their fourth luxury home. The ‘global warming’ business has been very, very good to the Gores.
Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal… The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Given the ocean-view, Gore really can’t be too concerned with rising sea levels. A little sleuthing led me to this delightful listing, which I believe is the new Gore residence as: (a) it recently dropped off the listing agent’s “for sale” site; and (b) it meets the fairly unique criteria specified by the Montecito Journal.
Don’t you love these hypocritical Climatards? (That’s the term they prefer, I hear).
They want to control your lives: how big your car can be, how much water your toilet can hold, the kind of light bulbs you can use. They even think there are limits on how much money you should be able to make.
But they put no limits on what they can have. Kind of like the old Soviet Politburo. Which is the kind of society they intend for us.