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
Your graph (1825) is nice, but only goes back to 1976, and does not show the IPCC projections for the future.
For a more complete picture see the graph below. It clearly shows the observed multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles as well as the underlying long-term warming trend, plus the fantasy numbers for the future from IPCC.
Ouch!
Max
Tonyb (1804)
“The Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this year that Nasa scientists believe Britain could face widespread power blackouts and be left without critical communication signals for long periods of time..”
I have this mental picture of the NASA scientists suddenly getting all upset when they realise it will affect Britain! Dear old DT – still in Empire mode by the sound of it…
Even the BBC covered it on R4, and I have to say that it sounds a lot more worrying (and likely) than CAGW. For one thing, I think the effects are rather understated, given our total reliance on computers and networks. Take those out, and nothing would work, except perhaps a few old diesel tractors…
James P #1829
Precisely. A Govt minister said such an event would throw us back to the Dark ages. No electric power and all the things that rely on it, whether the drawing of water, dispensing of fuel, the transport of food, the paying of wages.
Another Carrington event would assuredly destroy modern society within days and a simlar event created by man, such as through computer hacking would do the same.
We only have eyes for the dubious AGW proposition which is diverting us from considering more important things of which another Carrington event is only one.
tonyb
JamesP and TonyB
The Daily Telegraph article you cited (1829) does include an estimate by NASA of the damages that would be caused by a major solar storm:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html
“Twenty times” $125 billion equals $2.5 trillion.
How does this compare with AGW?
Wiki tells us that most studies estimate the long-term impact of AGW to range between a positive 2.5% of GDP to a negative 5% of GDP (i.e. –3.75±1.25 % of GDP, while the Stern Review has come up with a much higher estimate.
Wiki tells us further:
Hmmm. As Wegman said (referring to the same argument used in defense of Mann’s discredited hockeystick):
So let’s forget the Stern Review and stick with the other estimates.
World GDP is estimated to be around $58 trillion. 3.75% of this would be $2.2 trillion.
So the projected “impact” of a major solar storm is about the same as that, which has been estimated for AGW (for what it’s worth).
Now let’s discuss the probability of occurrence.
Max
TonyB
The NASA estimate (or rather “guess”) of damages resulting from a major solar storm could well be grossly understated, when compared with a major “Carrington Event”.
As you described it earlier, such an event could have an impact of more than just a few percentage points of global GDP, if it, indeed, caused our entire economy to come to a grinding halt.
Would the real impact of such an event be 10 times that, which has been projected from AGW or 100 times?
Who knows?
But it certainly makes sense to put in any protection we can, since a similar effect could also result on a regional basis from a deliberate attack (by a terrorist group, for example).
In the same sense, if there are any low-lying areas that are truly being threatened by rising sea levels resulting from global warming, the logical thing to do would be to increase the height of local protective dikes and levees.
But I believe that the key points to compare for the two events are the probability and potential impact of occurrence.
And it appears that AGW is a far less serious threat than a repeat of a major “Carrington Event”.
Max
Max and JamesP
The report says;
“Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”
Dr Fisher added: “Systems will just not work. The flares change the magnetic field on the earth that is rapid and like a lightning bolt. That is the solar affect. It will cause major problems for the world. ”
Looking at the economic damage is only one unrealistic measure, it is societal damage that would be far worse. Bearing in mind the panic caused by such as Sars and BSe it is easy to imagine the complete societal melt down that would occur if all of a sudden nothing worked.
Its all very well to believe this would result only in a vaguely manageable financial loss, but if power, heating, transport, pay, water and everything else we rely on suddenly became unavailable for an unquantifiable period of time there would be rioting in the streets and the complete destruction of our (advanced) societies.
This is something we can safeguard against and is a realistic threat that could happen at anty time-unlike AGW.
It baffles me how Peter can get in such a state about theoretical AGW but dismiss other much greater realistic threats which it is easily within our power to do something about
tonyb
TonyB
You are right.
The impact on our modern society of a major Carrington event as you have described it would make AGW look like a stroll in the park, as even PeterM (as a physicist) would have to agree..
First, it would happen suddenly (if and when it did), rather than gradually, as is projected for AGW. This means that chances to “adapt” would be essentially nil, whereas they could be quite easy with the gradual changes projected to occur with AGW.
The “sudden collapse” of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheet leading to a sea level increase “measured in meters” is a scaremonger’s nightmare that not even IPCC takes seriously, so can be ignored. But, even if one assumes that it could occur some time in the next two or three centuries, it would only affect coastal areas. And there would undoubtedly be warning signs that it is close to happening long before it actually did, allowing adaptation measures (including evacuation unprotected of low-lying areas) to be taken.
The studies on the long-term economic impact of prolonged AGW estimated a range, which varied from net positive to net negative impact. These were undoubtedly skewed to accentuate the negative and downplay the positive impacts. Maybe the net overall impact of a slightly warmer world could be positive rather than negative. After all, humanity has had far more problems with past cold periods than with warm ones, as history tells us.
There are no positive impacts on our modern society from a major Carrington Event that I can think of.
But the major difference is that there is no “convenient network” benefiting from a hysteria about a Carrington event, no multi-billion dollar industry depending on this hysteria (as there is for AGW), no potential trillion dollar “tax” to be levied on mankind to be shuffled about by politicians for favorite projects, no “human guilt” aspect to motivate the gullible public into accepting such a tax, etc.
Max
Does anyone still really believe that Arctic ice is growing?
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/First_Russian_gas_tanker_forges_Arctic_passage_to_China_999.html
“Never before has a ship of this size passed via the Northeast sea passage,” said Captain Alexander Nikiforov in an interview with Russian channel NTV.
“The trailblazing voyage by Russian state-owned shipping giant Sovcomflot is the latest Kremlin bid to mark out its stake over the energy-rich Arctic, where retreating ice cover amid global warming is opening new strategic trade routes.”
and the reason for the ice’s decline is:
Peter #1835
This route has been open for many years
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Northeast_Passage.aspx
Having the worlds two largest nuclear ice breakers helps keep it navigable for larger ships.
Traders in the period 1920-1940 also noticed the lack of arctic ice
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Arctic-Ocean-is-warming-icebergs-growing-scarcer-reports-Washington-Post
Extract from this 1927 newspaper report
“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
(That report was carried in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922.)
I wrote about the earlier down turn in arctic ice in the period 1820-1870 in this article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
I am currently putting together an article on the dramatic sea ice loss experienced during the Vikings 1000 years ago and the Ipiatuk 2000 years ago.
Arctic ice is much more variable than you want to believe Peter.
tonyb
TonyB,
Well that’s not quite how the shipping industry are explaining it. They say
“The Russian ice breaker fleet kept the passage navigable when required. This has been necessary for centuries and decades and sailing
through the Northeast-Passage without ice breaker assistance has never been reasonable.
Then, in 2007 and 2008 reports suggested that regular shipping through this inhospitable area, long a seafarer’s dream, could become reality. Satellite pictures revealed that melting ice during summer opens the way.”
http://www.pes.eu.com/assets/misc/belugaa-1pdf-83.pdf
There is some conflicting information about the role of icebreakers. Naturally Russian would prefer to charge for ice-breaker escorts. However the shipping lines appear confident that they can complete the voyage without the ice of icebreakers:
“The mission, which is to be made without icebreaker assistance has been planned for a long period”
http://www.barentsobserver.com/german-vessels-ready-for-the-northern-sea-route.4616626-16175.html
Should be “without the use of icebreakers” :-)
PeterM
I think the clue’s in the name…
Tonyb
I seem to recall that a few days’ worth of striking fuel tanker drivers nearly brought the UK to its knees a few years ago, so I think it is fair to assume that a Carrington event would create utter chaos.
Any idea how one could prepare for it, apart from stocking up on food and shotgun cartridges..?
JamesP, TonyB, PeterM
Earlier crossings of NE Passage are documented.
http://books.google.ch/books?id=ExUvmRai6rUC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=northeast+passage+crossings&source=bl&ots=0m2JUdkWDL&sig=OTtCkzBgcfb2KoUGLy63TmUNFB8&hl=de&ei=5duZTKaMOZCsONuCpJEB&sa=X&oi=boo
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/history/amundsen.shtml
Finally, several earlier voyages in the 16th and 17th centuries are listed here:
http://books.google.ch/books?id=PYdBH4dOOM4C&pg=PA473&lpg=PA473&dq=northeast+passage+crossings&source=bl&ots=hbH2uOzvjf&sig=–NbRmii6_LvUKvoBYoRBSBCvpQ&hl=de&ei=xuGZTLqbEs-BOID0yYgI&sa=X&oi=book_re
Max
No I’m afraid the clue isn’t in the name “passage”. Sir John Franklin also thought the same way, about the NW passage, in the 19th century. However he didn’t quite make it through! For the simple reason that there was no way through.
This is a report of the “1st commercial ship sails through Northwest Passage”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/11/28/nwest-vessel.html
Yes, there was an report of the US using an ice breaker to tow an oil tanker in the 60’s but this time the shipping company reported:
“They [icebreakers] were informed about our presence [and] they were ready to give us the support needed. However, since there was no ice whatsoever, the service was not needed, we didn’t call for it.”
These aren’t Greenpeace spokesmen, or even scientists, who you mistrust, but hard headed shipping operators who are saying that Arctic ice is disappearing for the first time in recorded history, and that they are prepared to take advantage of it.
19 ships cleared the NW passage this year:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/09/20/northwest-passage-ships-inuvik.html
“The increase in marine traffic is largely a result of climate change opening up the passage” said Rob Huebert, the associate director for the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
JamesP
You are right to make the analogy with the striking fuel drivers-we saw how quickly things can unravel and that was something we knew about in advance and could to some extent cater for. A Carrington event or cyber attack would be much quicker and far more devastating.
However, unless you have the means to become completely self sufficient, my advice would be not to become as paranoid about it as Peter seems to have done over the far less likely scenario of AGW.
On a more practical basis you can ask your MP what he or she is doing about it, and to ask your energy suppliers the same.
This needs to be sorted out at a government level, who first need to become cured of their fixation with non existent problems such as CAGW and focus their attentions on real world concerns that can actually be fixed.
Tonyb
Peter #1843
Are we talking about the North East or North West passage now?
If you folow the link to my article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
you will see I go into the history of finding a route through the North West passage. They had neither ice breakers nor sophisticated navigation assistance to help them.
Do you really believe-despite all the evidence to the contrary-that the arctic was always a solidly frozen wasteland until 1979?
Tonyb
Peter said;
“These aren’t Greenpeace spokesmen, or even scientists, who you mistrust, but hard headed shipping operators who are saying that Arctic ice is disappearing for the first time in recorded history, and that they are prepared to take advantage of it.”
Peter, Once again you havent read any of the links people have provided you with. This report I quoted was from 1927-is that outside of recorded history?
“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
(That report was carried in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922.)”
Why do you ignore past well documented episodes of warming?
tonyb
TonyB
Peter is right, of course. The sea ice reacts to local temperature, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Every summer it shrinks and every winter it grows back again to around 2.5 times its late summer extent in the Arctic and over 4 times its late summer extent in the Antarctic.
There are also much smaller inter-annual variances.
Since NSIDC satellite records started in 1979, the late summer minimum extent in the Arctic has shrunk. It reached its lowest extent in September 2007 at close to 40% below the 1979-2000 mean baseline value and has recovered somewhat since then, but is still slightly more than 20% lower than the 1979-2000 baseline value.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
At the same time, Antarctic sea ice has grown: the late-summer minimum is around 18% above the 1979-2000 mean baseline value.
The summer minimum extent in the Arctic has gone through previous periods of shrinking and expansion, most likely related to previous periods of warming and cooling, as well as shifts in wind patterns and ocean currents.
Russian records show that it had shrunk to a low extent in the 1940s, when Arctic temperatures were also warmer.
ftp://ftp.whoi.edu/pub/users/mtimmermans/ArcticSymposiumTalks/Smolyanitsky.pdf
A separate study of Greenland temperatures shows that these were slightly higher in the 1930s than today, as well.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml
The temperature record for Illulisaat, on the west coast of Greenland, near the mouth of the Jakobshavn Glacier, shows this same warming in the early 20th century, with temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s a bit higher than those of today.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/3797223161_16c1ac5e39_b.jpg
So there is no question, as you have reported, that there have been earlier periods of warming and ice retreat and that the current period is not unusual.
From the 1950s to late 1970s the Russian records show that the ice grew back again to a relatively high level as Arctic temperature cooled. This is when the modern satellite record started.
Max
Tonyb
Thanks for the link to your article. I haven’t read it all yet (!) but I note that the Royal Society had a rather different attitude then:
“this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past”
I imagine they were more accessible during the MWP, too, when Greenland was, er, green.
PeterM
You have apparently shifted your interest from the Northeast Passage (1835) to the Northwest Passage (1843).
TonyB and I have documented earlier crossings of the Northeast Passage here, and the same was done earlier on this thread and its predecessor for the Northwest Passage.
Refer to posts 322, 356, 697, 711, 713, 1512, 1520, 1524.
Your claim that the NW passage was recently crossed for the first time was refuted by several posters (Bob_FJ, Brute, myself, etc.) with links citing crossings in normal ships in 1906 (Amundsen) but later also in 1929, 1930, 1937, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1985 and 1988.
We can conclude that there is nothing unprecedented about recent crossings of both the Northeast and Northwest Passages.
Max
TonyB
Your WUWT article on “Historic Variation in Arctic Ice” gives an excellent and well-referenced history of Arctic sea ice, that puts the NSIDC data from 1979 into proper perspective.
I had read it once before, but enjoyed re-reading it again.
Hope Peter reads it. He can learn something by doing so.
Max
Max
It would be useful if Peter could decide which passage he is talking about and even more useful if he would actually read the links we give him.
He also seems to suffer from a bad case of ‘selective information syndrome’ which I understand is a well known trait exclusive to people paranoid about CAGW.
tonyb
Which Northern passage? Both.
Why are they opening?